U.S. Supreme Court: McWilliams v. Dunn Pre-Argument Briefing

In 1986, James McWilliams (pic­tured), an indi­gent defen­dant, was sen­tenced to death by a judge in Alabama after being denied access to an inde­pen­dent expert who could have helped the defense under­stand and present his men­tal health issues. On April 24, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court will hold oral argu­ment in McWilliams v. Dunn. The ques­tion before the Court is whether, when the Supreme Court held in Ake v. Oklahoma (1985) that an indi­gent defen­dant is enti­tled to mean­ing­ful expert assis­tance for the ​“eval­u­a­tion, prepa­ra­tion, and pre­sen­ta­tion of the defense,” it clear­ly estab­lished that the expert should be inde­pen­dent of the pros­e­cu­tion. The Brief for Petitioner (BFP) argues that “[t]he pros­e­cu­tion and defense can no more share the same expert than they can share the same lawyer” (BFP, p. 26).

In Ake v. Oklahoma, the U.S. Supreme Court clear­ly rec­og­nized that once an indi­gent defen­dant has estab­lished that his men­tal health is like­ly to be a sig­nif­i­cant fac­tor at tri­al, he is enti­tled to receive the assis­tance of an expert to assist his defense. The Court in Ake rec­og­nized that ​“such assis­tance is essen­tial to pro­vid­ing the defen­dant ​‘a fair oppor­tu­ni­ty to present his defense,’ and to ensur­ing that facts are resolved based on the views and exper­tise of ​‘psy­chi­a­trists for each par­ty,’ which is con­sis­tent with the adver­sary sys­tem” (BFP, p. 17). 

Two days before his sen­tenc­ing hear­ing, attor­neys for Mr. McWilliams, who sus­tained head injuries as a child and young adult, received a com­plex psy­cho­log­i­cal report from the state’s neu­ropsy­chol­o­gist, Dr. John R. Goff. The report stat­ed that Mr. McWilliams had ​“organ­ic brain dam­age,” ​“gen­uine neu­ropsy­cho­log­i­cal prob­lems,” and ​“an obvi­ous neu­ropsy­cho­log­i­cal deficit” (BFP, p. 3), among oth­er issues. The fol­low­ing day, Mr. McWilliams’s defense team received his volu­mi­nous recent men­tal health records, and received his prison records on the day of the sen­tenc­ing. The records showed, among oth­er things, that Mr. McWilliams was being treat­ed with psy­chotrop­ic med­ica­tion. However, with­out the assis­tance of a men­tal health expert, attor­neys for Mr. McWilliams could not review and under­stand the report and records regard­ing Mr. McWilliams’s men­tal impair­ments in time for the hear­ing, and with­out an inde­pen­dent expert, none of their dis­cus­sions with the expert in under­stand­ing and eval­u­at­ing the evi­dence and devel­op­ing a defense strat­e­gy would be legal­ly priv­i­leged. Mr. McWilliams’s attor­neys repeat­ed­ly sought a con­tin­u­ance so they could con­sult with an inde­pen­dent expert and devel­op a mit­i­ga­tion case based on the evi­dence of Mr. McWilliams’s men­tal dis­or­ders and impair­ments. The tri­al court judge denied the motions and sen­tenced Mr. Williams to death.

Mr. McWilliams appealed his death sen­tence to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, argu­ing he had been denied his con­sti­tu­tion­al right to inde­pen­dent expert assis­tance under Ake v. Oklahoma. In affirm­ing the death sen­tence, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that Ake did not enti­tle Mr. McWilliams to any­thing more than the views of the psy­chol­o­gist who report­ed simul­ta­ne­ous­ly to the pros­e­cu­tion, the defense, and the judge (BFP, p. 4). Since its deci­sion in Mr. McWilliams’s case, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals has reversed itself, decid­ing in 2005 that Ake estab­lished a right to a men­tal health expert inde­pen­dent of the pros­e­cu­tion (Morris v. State).

The absence of an inde­pen­dent expert left Mr. McWilliams ​“unable to present any mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence on the only sig­nif­i­cant fac­tor at his sen­tenc­ing: his men­tal health” (BFP, p. 20).

The Brief for Petitioner argues that ​“an expert assist­ing the defense would have explained in lay terms to defense coun­sel how to present the diag­noses and infor­ma­tion in the report and records as mit­i­gat­ing cir­cum­stances. Consideration of [Mr.] McWilliams’s brain dam­age and oth­er men­tal health issues was essen­tial to a fair and reli­able sen­tenc­ing deter­mi­na­tion” (BFP, p. 21).

In Ake v. Oklahoma, the U.S. Supreme Court rea­soned that the right to an inde­pen­dent men­tal health expert fol­lowed from the right to coun­sel rec­og­nized in Gideon v. Wainwright. Underlying this case is a basic ques­tion: are poor peo­ple accused of crimes enti­tled to access to inde­pen­dent experts, just as rich peo­ple are. McWilliams v. Dunn is fun­da­men­tal­ly about fair­ness, equi­ty, and an even play­ing field for all in our crim­i­nal justice system.

Resources on McWilliams v. Dunn

Tags