CALL 205.538.3340

The Law Office of J.D. Lloyd Logo

AfterTheTrial.com... Because There’s Hope After the Trial

BLOG

After The Trial Blog

The After The Trial blog presents insights on ongoing and recent trials around the state of Alabama, including weekly criminal law round-ups.

High Court Reverses Another Alabama Death Sentence

J.D. Lloyd - Monday, June 19, 2017


McWilliams v. Dunn, Comm’r ALDOC

 

Question Presented: Did Alabama courts wrongfully conclude McWilliams was not denied meaningful assistance from a mental-health expert under Ake v. Oklahoma?

 

Facts

 

McWilliams was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for a 1994 robbery/rape/murder that took place in a convenience store in Tuscaloosa. McWilliams’ mental health was explored in depth during the course of his trial. He was examined by a “Lunacy Commission” composed of three doctors at Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility. After he was convicted and after the jury recommended he be sentenced to death by a vote of 10-2, McWilliams asked for neurological and neuropsychological exams. The court order a Dr. John Goff, a neuropsychologist with the State, to examine McWilliams. However, Dr. Goff’s findings were not based on a complete review of his mental health records. His report was given to McWilliams only 48 hours before the judicial sentencing phase. On the eve of the judicial sentencing hearing, Taylor Hardin and Holman Prison sent defense counsel updated records which had been subpoenaed months before. Trial counsel continuously asked the trial court for an independent expert and a continuance, but these requests were rejected.

 

Eventually, McWilliams case arrived in federal court when he filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. Among other issues, McWilliams argued that the State deprived him of Due Process under Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985). McWilliams argued this denial was a violation of “clearly established federal law” and thus entitled him to habeas corpus relief. The district court denied the request.

 

Ake v. Oklahoma

In Ake, the Court ruled that the Constitution requires the State to provide an indigent defendant with “assistance necessary to prepare an effective defense based on his mental condition” if the defendant’s sanity is in question. The ruling was framed around the concept of the “meaningful access to justice.” The expert should “assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense.”

 

Eleventh Circuit Ruling

The Eleventh Circuit denied relief. Initially, the Court concluded that McWilliams failed to meet his burden of showing that “clearly established federal law” entitled him to an independent expert. The Eleventh Circuit noted a split in the circuits regarding whether Ake requires the appointment of an independent expert and that the Supreme Court had never resolved that split. Because the split existed, there was, in the Court’s opinion, no clearly established federal law that could entitled McWilliams relief on this claim. Additionally, the court concluded that the State courts’ determination that Ake had been satisfied was likewise not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

 

Judge Wilson’s dissent

Judge Wilson believed that Ake was not satisfied here. First, the State failed to provide meaningful psychological assistance. McWilliams did not receive any expert assistance until after the sentencing hearing held before the jury. Second, the assistance McWilliams received from Dr. Goff was based on an incomplete review of the mental health records available for consideration. In Judge Wilson’s opinion, this paltry showing did not satisfy Ake and warrants habeas corpus relief.

 

Supreme Court Ruling

The Court ruled that in the particular circumstances of this case, McWilliams’ rights under Ake were not protected. The Court declined to answer the more specific question of whether Ake requires appointment of a mental health expert who is independent of the prosecution because Alabama failed to satisfy “Ake’s most basic requirements.”

 

The Court rejected Alabama’s argument that it complied with Ake by allowing Dr. Goff to examine McWilliams. Ake requires more: “[1] examination and assist in [2] evaluation, [3] preparation, and [4] presentation of the defense.” The Court concluded that even if it were to assume the State satisfied the “examination” requirement, it completely failed to satisfy the last three prongs.

 

While the 11th Circuit had ruled that whatever error McWilliams suffered was “harmless,” the Supreme Court noted that ruling was limited to just the question of whether the requested continuance would have made a difference in McWilliams sentencing. The Court pointed out that on remand the 11th Circuit should consider how the State’s failure to guarantee the remaining three prongs of Ake would have made a difference in McWilliams’ case.

 

Dissent (Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch)

The dissent would have had the Court address the narrow question of whether it is clearly established federal law that Ake requires the appointment of an independent mental health expert. The dissent complains that Alabama didn’t have a chance to address the question the Court actually addressed. However, this simply isn’t true. Alabama briefed the merits of the underlying Ake claim at the merits stage.

 

The 11th Circuit on Remand

The Eleventh Circuit is likely to kick the case back down to the district court to address the full Ake question. It’s hard to see McWilliams’ death sentence standing when the Supreme Court has all but said 3 aspects of Ake weren’t satisfied here.

 

If you or someone you know has been convicted of wrongful criminal charges, there is hope after the trial. Contact us today by clicking HERE.


 


Recent Posts


Tags

sixth amendment social media hurst mandamus Pleasant Grove Alabama pelham alabama burglary unlawful manufacturing mccalla alabama morris alabama Gardendale Alabama department of justice economic growth dothan alabama campbell v state fake kidnapping, operation crackdown theft of property criminal justice pruitt v state smith v state lamar county cherokee county alabama Ingmire v State cullman alabama executions hall v florida hurst v florida ex parte briseno rainbow city alabama warrantless blood draws Stephen Breyer Woods v State decatur alabama aziz sayyed fraud car accident tarrant alabama kenneth eugene billups dora alabama editorial embezzlement department of justice, sheffield v state Rule 32 alabama law enforcement agency court of criminal appeal releases Walker County Alabama Adamsville alabama fort payne alabama Wesley Adam Whitworth netflix underage drinking anniston alabama, asia mcclain heritage christian university Donald Trump, Briarwood Presbyterian Church fairfield alabama, constitutional law, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 st clair county alabama limestone county alabama second amendment madison alabama sentencing law and policy blog summaries bailey v us OJ Simpson Made in America midazolam alabama Alabaster alabama felony assaults brady v maryland birchfield v north dakota minor offenses huntsville CCA update domestic abuse street racing implied consent William Pryor negligent homicide death penalty banville v state ferguson missouri lethal injection abuse blount county alabama mike gilotti debit card skimming scams eighth amendment, road rage Eutaw Alabama huntsville alabama moore v texas OJ Simpson greene county alabama narcotics investigation mulga alabama marion county Joshua Reese morgan county alabama ake v oklahoma Glaze v State Kareem Dacar Gaymon tuscaloosa alabama death penalty, sexual assault drug busts SCOTUS, mobile alabama Lucky D Arcade habeas corpus relief capital offenses drug activity Guy Terrell Junior home repair fraud talladega superspeedway levins v state mountain brook alabama bernard v north dakota shooting homicide rate Hillary Clinton, nicholas hawkins Mike Hubbard self defense homicide towles v state parole shooting death brian fredick lucas murder dekalb county alabama Marengo County Alabama Sardis Alabama criminal justice reform, abandonment christian guitierez theft npr Fentanyl Tracie Todd trussville alabama Justice Sotomayor Dylann Roof gadsden alabama lethal injection drugs foley alabama jerry bohannon ring v arizona Jefferson County Alabama florence alabama adnan syed, making a murderer sarah koenig legende v state eric sterling apprendi v new jersey robberies abduction LWOP Shonda Walker, drug seizure pinson alabama drug smuggling West Alabama domestic violence montgomery alabama Kay Ivey illegal gun carry Xavier Beasley eugene lee jones v state operation bullseye texas breaking and entering state of arizona hoax destructive devices kidnapping albertville alabama alabama supreme court oneonta alabama betton v state russell calhoun court systems, baltimore city circuit court Etowah County Alabama, drug crimes steve avery illegal gambling warrior alabama Malone v State heflin alabama armed robbery shoplifting strickland v washington nathan woods brendan dassey, steve avery, making a murderer, scotus, netflix debtor prison Benn v State capital punishment gun rights springville alabama stanley brent chapman alfonso morris brendan dassey keith v state serial calhoun county alabama john earle redfearn IV v state animal cruelty public assistance fraud utah v strieff mcwilliams v dunn court of criminal appeals eleventh circuit ruling Alonzo Ephraim state of alabama stoves v state adger alabama endangerment of a child prostitution sting criminal mischief church robberies § 13A-3-23 bessemer alabama assault hanceville alabama constitutional violations edwards v arizona drug possession, birmingham alabama battles v state mount olive alabama aiding and abetting pell city alabama Tommy Arthur gun control Samuel Alito brookside alabama south carolina lauderdale county alabama moving violations 2016 election, crime of passion avondale alabama the mannequin challenge utah supreme court identity theft baldwin county alabama benjamin todd acton fraudulent checks christmas shooting scotus judicial override bomb threat US Supreme Court Update concealed carry shelby county Neil Gorsuch Easter terell corey mcmullin arson fourth amendment peyton pruitt clarence thomas blountsville alabama § 13A-3-23(d) immunity hearing attempted murder New York Times boaz alabama fultondale alabama alabama criminal law roundup kimberly alabama maryland court of special appeals hoover alabama forced isolation Thomas Hardiman drug trafficking, beylund v north dakota capital murder

Archive

DISCLAIMER

These recoveries and testimonials are not an indication of future results. Every case is different, and regardless of what friends, family, or other individuals may say about what a case is worth, each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances as they apply to the law. The valuation of a case depends on the facts, the injuries, the jurisdiction, the venue, the witnesses, the parties, and the testimony, among  other factors. Furthermore, no representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Get Free Legal Advice  Contact us for a complimentary legal consultation

I am interested in scheduling a free legal consultation and receiving additional information.

Submitting Form...

The server encountered an error.

Thank you, your  entry has been  received.

© 2017 The Law Office of J.D. Lloyd, LLC. All Rights Reserved. |

 

As required by Rule 7.2(e), Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, no representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.