McWilliams v. Comm'r, Alabama Department of Corrections
Decision Date | 15 October 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 13-13906,13-13906 |
Citation | 940 F.3d 1218 |
Parties | James MCWILLIAMS, Petitioner – Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Warden, Holman Correctional Facility, Attorney General, State of Alabama, Respondents – Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Petitioner, James McWilliams, is an Alabama prison inmate awaiting execution for murder. A jury found McWilliams guilty as charged and recommended that he be sentenced to death. At McWilliams's sentencing hearing, his attorney requested, under Ake v. Oklahoma ,1 that the court appoint a psychiatrist to assist him in countering the State's argument that McWilliams's mental health status was insufficient to constitute a mitigating circumstance that warranted imposing a sentence of life imprisonment rather than death. The trial judge denied that request. The U.S. Supreme Court, reviewing our denial of McWilliams's application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,2 concluded that the trial judge's refusal to provide the requested psychiatric assistance, which the Alabama appellate courts had upheld,3 constituted a decision that was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law"—i.e., its holding in Ake v. Oklahoma —and reversed. McWilliams v. Dunn , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 1790, 1801, 198 L.Ed.2d 341 (2017) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) ). The Court remanded the case with the instruction that we consider, under Brecht v. Abrahamson ,4 whether McWilliams is entitled to the habeas writ and a new sentencing hearing. We conclude that he is.
We draw from the Supreme Court's opinion in McWilliams v. Dunn in describing McWilliams's murder prosecution, the circumstances that gave rise to his attorney's request for psychiatric assistance, and why the refusal of that request ran afoul of Ake .
. McWilliams also described his history of psychiatric and psychological evaluations, reading from the prearrest report of one psychologist, who concluded that McWilliams had a "blatantly psychotic thought disorder" and needed inpatient treatment.
....
Although McWilliams'[s] counsel had subpoenaed further mental health records from Holman State Prison, where McWilliams was being held, the jury did not have the opportunity to consider them, for, though subpoenaed on August 13, the records had not arrived by August 27, the day of the jury hearing.
After the hearing, the jury recommended the death penalty by a vote of 10 to 2, the minimum required by Alabama law. The court scheduled its judicial sentencing hearing for October 9, about six weeks later.
Five weeks before that hearing, the trial court ordered the Alabama Department of Corrections to respond to McWilliams's subpoena for mental health records. The court also granted McWilliams'[s] motion for neurological and neuropsychological exams. ...
... Dr. John Goff, a neuropsychologist employed by the State's Department of Mental Health, examined McWilliams. On October 7, two days before the judicial sentencing hearing, Dr. Goff filed his report. The report concluded that McWilliams presented "some diagnostic dilemmas." On the one hand, he was "obviously attempting to appear emotionally disturbed" and "exaggerating his neuropsychological problems." But on the other hand, it was "quite apparent that he ha[d] some genuine neuropsychological problems." ....
The day before the sentencing hearing defense counsel also received updated records from Taylor Hardin hospital, and on the morning of the hearing he received the records (subpoenaed in mid-August) from Holman Prison. The prison records indicated that McWilliams was taking an assortment of psychotropic medications ....
The judicial sentencing hearing began on the morning of October 9. Defense counsel told the trial court that the eleventh-hour arrival of the Goff report and the mental health records left him "unable to present any evidence today." He said he needed more time to go over the new information. Furthermore, since he was "not a psychologist or a psychiatrist," he needed "to have someone else review these findings" and offer "a second opinion as to the severity of the organic problems discovered."
McWilliams , 137 S. Ct. at 1794–97 ( )(citations omitted).
McWilliams appealed, arguing that the trial court had erred in denying him the right to meaningful expert assistance guaranteed by Ake . The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed. It wrote that Ake 's requirements "are met when the State provides the [defendant] with a competent psychiatrist." McWilliams , 640 So. 2d at 991. And the State, by "allowing Dr. Goff to examine" McWilliams, had satisfied those requirements. Id.
"This was plainly incorrect," in the Supreme Court's view. McWilliams , 137 S. Ct. at 1800. The trial judge's conduct at the sentencing hearing "did not meet even Ake 's most basic requirements." Id. Ake "requires the State to provide the defense with ‘access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate [1] examination and assist in [2] evaluation , [3] preparation , and [4] presentation of the defense.’ " Id. (quoting Ake , 470 U.S. at 83, 105 S. Ct. at 1096 ) (alterations and emphasis in original).
Having concluded that the Alabama courts...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Granda v. United States, 17-15194
...... in terms of a judge's grave doubt, instead of in terms of ‘burden of proof’ "); McWilliams v. Comm'r, Ala. Dep't of Corr., 940 F.3d 1218, 1230 (11th Cir. 2019) (Jordan, J., concurring in the judgment) ( Brecht "is not a burden of proof."). Instead, the reviewing court should "ask direct......
-
United States v. Pearson
... ... Attorney Service - Northern District of Alabama, U.S. Attorney's Office, BIRMINGHAM, AL, for Plaintiff - ... ...
-
Williams v. Hampton, 18-6132
...federal courts must rule "in light of the record as a whole[.]" Brecht, 507 U.S. at 638; accord, e.g., McWilliams v. Comm'r, Ala. Dep't of Corrs.,940 F.3d 1218, 1226 (11th Cir. 2019) (appellate courts must "look to the record of the state trial court as a whole" when reviewing for harmless ......
-
Tiffany v. Legrand
...to harmless error inquiry or a structural error in which prejudice should be presumed. Compare McWilliams v. Comm'r, Alabama Dep't of Corr., 940 F.3d 1218, 1224-26 (11th Cir. 2019) (holding that an Ake violation was structural error), with White v. Johnson, 153 F.3d 197, 201 (5th Cir. 1998)......
-
Sentencing
...that evaluation would aid defense), overruled on other grounds by Williams v. Norris, 576 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 2009); McWilliams v. Comm’r, 940 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir. 2019) (due process violated because court-appointed psychologist did not assist defendant in evaluating report or preparing......
-
Review Proceedings
...court’s admission of witness’s involuntary statements had substantial and injurious effect); McWilliams v. Comm’r Ala. Dep’t. Corr., 940 F.3d 1218, 1226 (11th Cir. 2019) (state court’s denial to provide psychiatric assistance had substantial and injurious effect). But see, e.g. , Dorisca v.......
-
A Comprehensive Consideration of the Structural-Error Doctrine.
...470 U.S. 68, 83 (1985). (223.) Hicks v. Head, 333 F.3d 1280, 1286 (11th Cir. 2003). (224.) McWilliams v. Comm'r, Alabama Dep't of Corr., 940 F.3d 1218, 1224 (11th Cir. (225.) Id. at 1225-26 ("Our decision in [Hicks] does not compel a different result."). (226.) Id. (227.) Id. at 1226. (228.......