McWilliams v. Dunn, 137 S. Ct. 1790

Background

In 1984 Alabama charged James McWilliams with rape and murder; he was indigent, tried, convicted of capital murder, and the jury recommended death (10–2).
Pretrial a three-member Lunacy Commission (state psychiatrists) examined McWilliams and concluded he was competent and likely feigning symptoms; defense had subpoenaed additional prison mental-health records that arrived late.
District court ordered neurological/neuropsychological testing; Dr. John Goff (state-employed neuropsychologist) examined McWilliams and submitted a report two days before the judicial sentencing hearing diagnosing genuine neuropsychological deficits but noting probable exaggeration/malingering.
Defense counsel requested a continuance and expert assistance to review Goff’s report and voluminous records; the trial court denied the request, refused withdrawal, and proceeded to a judicial sentencing hearing where the judge sentenced McWilliams to death and found no mitigating mental-health evidence.
Alabama state courts held Ake v. Oklahoma was satisfied because the State provided a competent psychiatrist (via Goff); federal habeas courts initially deferred under AEDPA. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed, holding the state courts unreasonably applied Ake.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (McWilliams)	Defendant's Argument (Alabama)	Held
Whether Ake requires meaningful access to a mental‑health expert who can assist evaluation, preparation, and presentation	Ake entitles an indigent defendant to expert assistance sufficient to evaluate reports, prepare strategy, and present testimony; McWilliams lacked that assistance	State contends providing an examination (Goff) satisfied Ake; volunteer university psychologist or court‑appointed neutral expert suffices	Held for McWilliams: Ake requires access not only to an exam but assistance in evaluation, preparation, and presentation; Alabama fell short
Whether episodic volunteer assistance or a neutral/state expert satisfies Ake	McWilliams argues the defense needed an expert sufficiently available and effectively independent to assist the defense	Alabama argues volunteer help or neutral experts available to both sides can satisfy Ake; McWilliams did not specifically request more	Court rejected reliance on volunteer help here and found record shows McWilliams did request additional expert help; did not decide categorically whether Ake requires a defense‑retained expert
Whether the state court’s Ake ruling was an unreasonable application under AEDPA (28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1))	Error was substantial because no expert assisted defense in evaluation/preparation/presentation; state decision was contrary to clearly established law	Alabama asserted that Goff’s examination met Ake and that any error was harmless	Held: State courts’ decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law under Ake
Whether any Ake error was harmless (substantial and injurious effect)	McWilliams: lack of meaningful expert assistance could have altered the judge’s view (e.g., explaining malingering can coexist with mental illness)	Alabama: strong aggravators and prior expert findings of feigning make any error harmless	Supreme Court remanded for Eleventh Circuit to determine on remand whether the Ake error had the required substantial and injurious effect (harmless‑error unresolved)

Key Cases Cited

Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) (establishes that indigent defendants are entitled to access to a competent psychiatrist to conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense)
United States ex rel. Smith v. Baldi, 344 U.S. 561 (1953) (due process may be satisfied by access to a psychiatrist not beholden to the prosecution)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA standard: federal habeas relief requires state-court decision to be beyond fairminded disagreement)
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (respect for lower‑court factfinding and institutional roles in review)