McWilliams v. Dunn

Brief Filed: 3/17
Court: United States Supreme Court
Year of Decision: 2017

Read full-text amicus briefopens in new window (PDF, 171KB)

Whether under Ake — which held that indigent criminal defendants are entitled to "meaningful expert assistance" for the "evaluation, preparation and presentation of the[ir] defense" — the mental health expert assisting the defense should be independent of the prosecution and the court.

Criminal Defendant's Right to Assistance of Mental Health Professionals (Psychiatric Evaluations)

James McWilliams was convicted in Alabama state court of robbery, rape and murder. During the sentencing phase, the defense sought to establish (as mitigating evidence) that three significant head injuries McWilliams had suffered caused severe mental-health disorders. At the request of counsel for McWilliams, the trial judge appointed a neuropsychologist, Dr. John Goff, to provide an evaluation. Under the terms of his appointment, Dr. Goff distributed his expert report to the court and the prosecution at the same time he gave it to the defense (two days before the hearing at which the court imposed its death sentence). Defense counsel had no opportunity to consult with Dr. Goff.

As noted above, McWilliams' challenge to these events rests on the Court’s ruling in Ake v. Oklahoma. In Ake the Supreme Court held that if a criminal defendant’s mental health will be a significant factor at trial, he is entitled to “access to the psychiatric examination and assistance necessary to prepare an effective defense based on his mental condition.” Id. at 70. The Court reasoned that "without the assistance of a psychiatrist to conduct a professional examination … , to help determine whether the insanity defense is viable, to present testimony, and to assist in preparing the cross-examination of a State’s psychiatric witness, the risk of an inaccurate resolution of sanity issues is extremely high." Id. at 82. McWilliams argues that Ake entitles a defendant not just to an expert evaluation but an evaluation by an expert who is aligned with him and not also working for the prosecution or the court.

Filed jointly with the American Psychiatric Association, APA’s brief in McWilliams builds on the brief filed in Ake, explaining that mental health expertise can be vital for understanding a defendant’s mental state, stating that "[e]ven if the lay person can recognize the defendant's signs of cognitive or emotional disturbance, professional training or experience often may be required to elicit more detailed information" (p.16). APA argued that Ake’s mandate of "meaningful expert assistance" cannot be satisfied with an expert who is not working solely for the defense.

On June 19, 2017, in an opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit. The court held that when threshold criteria are met, consistent with the court’s ruling in Ake v. Oklahoma, a state “must provide an indigent defendant with access to a mental health expert who is sufficiently available to the defense and independent from the prosecution to effectively ‘assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense.’” The court held that Alabama failed to meet that standard here. In reaching its conclusion, the Court relied on the brief submitted by APA and American Psychiatric Association, finding, “If McWilliams had the assistance of an expert to explain that ‘[m]alingering is not inconsistent with serious mental illness,’ he might have been able to alter the judge’s perception of the case.” Slip op. 16 (citation omitted)