940 F.3d 1218
11th Cir.2019Background
- McWilliams, an indigent Alabama defendant, was convicted of capital murder; the jury recommended death by a 10–2 vote and the judge later held the sentencing hearing.
- Defense sought psychiatric assistance under Ake v. Oklahoma to evaluate and present mitigating mental-health evidence; the court ordered an examination by the State’s neuropsychologist (Dr. Goff) but denied defense access to an expert to evaluate, prepare, or present mitigation.
- Dr. Goff’s neuropsychological report and prison mental-health records arrived just days (and some on the morning) before the judicial sentencing hearing; defense moved for a continuance to obtain expert help and to review records—motion denied; judge found McWilliams malingering and imposed death.
- Alabama appellate courts upheld the denial; the U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding Alabama’s actions conflicted with Ake (examination alone insufficient) and remanded to the Eleventh Circuit to decide prejudice under Brecht v. Abrahamson.
- On remand the Eleventh Circuit majority held the Ake error was structural (harms the entire sentencing proceeding), presumed prejudice, and ordered habeas relief vacating the death sentence and remanding for a new Ake-compliant sentencing hearing; a concurrence would instead apply Hicks and Brecht but reach the same remedial result.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alabama met Ake by providing adequate psychiatric assistance (beyond an exam) | McWilliams: State failed — Ake requires examination plus evaluation, preparation, presentation assistance | State: Dr. Goff’s examination satisfied Ake; neutral/State-provided expert adequate | Supreme Court: Ake requires more than an exam; Alabama failed to provide the required assistance (as recognized on remand) |
| Whether an Ake violation is structural (prejudice presumed) or trial error (harmless-error review) | McWilliams: Denial is structural because it infected entire sentencing proceeding; prejudice presumed | State: Ake error is trial error subject to harmless-error review (Brecht); Hicks and sister circuits support harmlessness review | Eleventh Circuit majority: Ake error here is structural; prejudice presumed. Concurrence: bound by Hicks, would apply Brecht but finds prejudice anyway |
| If subject to harmless-error review, whether Brecht prejudice is shown | McWilliams: With expert assistance he would have presented mitigation (organic brain dysfunction, bipolar disorder) and rebutted malingering | State: Record supports malingering and aggravating factors; additional time would not have overcome evidence | Majority avoided Brecht (structural). Concurrence/alternative: applying Brecht finds a "substantial and injurious" effect and awards relief |
| Appropriate remedy | Grant new sentencing hearing after provision of Ake-compliant psychiatric assistance | Uphold death sentence | Court ordered writ vacating sentence and remanding for a new sentencing hearing consistent with Ake |
Key Cases Cited
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) (indigent defendant entitled to access to competent psychiatrist to examine and assist in evaluation, preparation, presentation)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (harmless-error standard for federal habeas review of trial errors)
- McWilliams v. Dunn, 137 S. Ct. 1790 (2017) (Supreme Court: Alabama’s handling of Ake claim was contrary to Ake; remanded to assess whether meaningful assistance "would have mattered")
- Hicks v. Head, 333 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2003) (held Ake errors are trial errors amenable to harmless-error review in that procedural context)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (framework for ineffective assistance and discussion distinguishing structural error)
- O'Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432 (1995) (discussing "grave doubt" standard when assessing prejudice in harmless-error context)