Published on: Monday, June 19, 2017

In a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court held that the Alabama state courts' application of Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985)(establishing that when certain threshold criteria are met, the state must provide a defendant with access to a mental health expert who is sufficiently available to the defense and independent from the prosecution to effectively conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense) was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. One month after Ake was decided, Alabama charged Petitioner with rape and murder. Finding him indigent, the trial court appointed counsel, who requested a psychiatric evaluation of petititoner. The court granted the motion. A jury convicted petitioner of capital murder and recommended a death sentence. While awaiting sentencing, petitioner's counsel asked for neurological and neuropsychological testing of petitioner, which was granted. Just before the sentencing hearing, counsel received updated mental health records from the Alabama Department of Corrections. At the sentencing hearing, counsel requested a continuance in order to evaluate the new materials and asked for assistance of someone with expertise in psychological matters to review the findings of the Department of Corrections. The trial court denied counsel's requests. Petitioner was sentenced to death. On appeal, petitioner argued that the trial court denied him the right to meaningful expert assistance. The state appellate court affirmed petitioner's conviction and sentence, holding that the experts who conducted the examinations of petitioner satisfied Ake's requirements. The Supreme Court disagreed. 

The Supreme Court held that Ake required more than just an examination. Ake requires that the State 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." The Supreme Court stated even assuming Alabama met the examination requirement, it did not meet any of the other three.

On remand, the Eleventh Circuit was instructed to determine whether the Alabama Courts' error had the "substantial and injurious effect or influence" required to warrant a grant of habeas relief, "specifically considering whether access to the type of meaningful assistance in evaluating, preparing, and presenting the defense that Ake requires could have made a difference."

Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Alito dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. 

For a copy of the opinion, McWilliams v. Dunn, No. 16-5294, click here.