Term: 2016
Docket: 16-5294
Mcwilliams v. Dunn
- Pro
16-5294 McWILLIAMS V. DUNN, COMM'R AL DOC DECISION BELOW: 634 Fed.Appx. 698 QUESTION PRESENTED: · The defendant's mitigation in this Alabama death penalty case was based on severe mental health disorders that resulted from multiple head injuries. In response to the defense motion for a mental health expert, the trial judge appointed an expert who reported his findings simultaneously to the court, the prosecution, and the defense just two days before the sentencing hearing. Defense counsel had no opportunity to consult with the expert or have him review voluminous medical and psychological records that were not made available to the defense until the start of the sentencing hearing. Thus, as the dissent below noted, "McWilliams was precluded from meaningfully participating in the judicial sentencing hearing and did not receive a fair opportunity to rebut the State's psychiatric experts."1 This meaningless expert assistance violated McWilliams's rights under Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 83 (1985), which held that when an indigent defendant’s mental health is a significant factor at trial, the State must "assure the defendant access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense.” However, there is a division among the circuits with regard to this holding, which affects the type of expert assistance indigent defendants receive nationwide, in both capital and non· capital trials. Most circuits have held that an independent defense expert is required by Ake, but minorities of circuits, including the court below, have found that Ake is satisfied by an expert who reports to both sides and the court. The questions presented are: (1) When this Court held in Ake that an indigent defendant is entitled to meaningful expert assistance for the "evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense,” did it clearly establish that the expert should be independent of the prosecution? (2) Did the Alabama courts unreasonably apply Ake in finding that McWilliams's rights were satisfied when the only mental health expert he was provided distributed his report to all parties just two days before sentencing and was unable to review voluminous medical and psychological records? 1 McWiliams v. Comm'r, Ala. Dep't of Corr., 634 F. App'x 698, 716 (11th Cir. 2015) (Wilson, J., dissenting). LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 13-13906 LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. ORDER OF MARCH 6, 2017: THE MOTION OF PETITIONER FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IS GRANTED, AND STEPHEN B. BRIGHT, ESQUIRE, OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA, IS APPOINTED TO SERVE AS COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER IN THIS CASE. CERT. GRANTED 1/13/2017
In the case of McWilliams v. Dunn, James McWilliams was convicted for a crime in Alabama and sentenced to death. His defense argued that he had significant mental health issues which were not adequately considered during sentencing due to lack of access to an independent expert witness on his behalf, violating his rights under Ake v. Oklahoma (1985). The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of McWilliams stating that the denial of an independent mental health expert violated his right to due process as defined by Ake. This ruling emphasized that defendants must have access not only to a competent psychiatrist but also one who is sufficiently available and cooperative with defense counsel so they can effectively use their expertise in developing strategy, particularly when potential mental illness could impact sentencing decisions.
In the dissenting opinion for MCWILLIAMS v. DUNN, Justice Alito argued that the majority misinterpreted Ake v. Oklahoma and expanded its scope beyond what was originally intended. He contended that Ake only required states to provide an indigent defendant with access to a competent psychiatrist who would assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense - not necessarily an independent expert wholly dedicated to this task as interpreted by the majority ruling. In his view, Alabama had met these requirements by providing McWilliams with a psychiatric report from state-employed doctors along with other relevant medical reports and records prior to sentencing which could be used for his defense strategy.
