McWilliams v. Dunn
Holding
The Alabama courts' determination that James McWilliams received all the assistance to which Ake v. Oklahoma entitled him -- when certain threshold criteria are met, access to a state-provided 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; and (2) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit should determine on remand whether the Alabama courts' error had the "substantial and injurious effect or influence" required to warrant a grant of habeas relief under Davis v. Ayala, 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.
Judgment
Reversed and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Stephen G. Breyer on Jun 19, 2017. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined.
Recommended Citation: McWilliams v. Dunn, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/mcwilliams-v-dunn/