## Facts

- James E. McWilliams, an indigent Alabama defendant, was charged with rape and murder in a capital case.
- The trial court ordered a psychiatric evaluation by a state commission, which found him competent and not mentally ill at the time of the offense.
- The jury convicted McWilliams and recommended a death sentence.
- Before sentencing, the defense obtained orders for additional neurological testing and prison mental-health records.
- A state-employed neuropsychologist (Dr. John Goff) examined McWilliams and produced a report delivered two days before the sentencing hearing, indicating possible genuine neuropsychological problems and psychotic symptoms (though possibly exaggerated).
- On the business day immediately preceding the sentencing hearing, defense counsel also received updated commission records and prison records showing psychotropic medication use.
- Defense counsel requested a continuance and appointment of a mental-health expert to help interpret the new materials and develop mitigation; the court granted only a short adjournment of a few hours and then imposed the death penalty.

## Issues

1. Whether, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), the state courts unreasonably applied clearly established federal law by concluding that the assistance provided satisfied Ake’s requirement of expert aid for evaluation, preparation, and presentation at sentencing.
2. Whether providing a neutral mental examination, without meaningful expert assistance to the defense in using mental-health evidence, meets Ake in a capital sentencing proceeding.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded in a 5–4 decision (Justice Breyer).
- The Court held that the state courts unreasonably applied Ake in concluding that Alabama provided the mental-health assistance Ake requires.
- Even assuming Alabama satisfied the “examination” component, it failed to provide assistance in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense, particularly for sentencing mitigation.
- The Court declined to decide the broader question whether Ake always requires a defense-retained expert independent of the prosecution.
- The case was remanded for the lower court to decide whether the Ake error had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence” on the sentence under the Brecht harmless-error standard.

## Legal Principles

- When an indigent defendant makes the required showing that mental condition will be a significant factor, due process requires access to a competent mental-health expert who can conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense.
- Ake clearly establishes more than a bare, neutral examination; the constitutional requirement includes functional expert assistance that enables the defense to understand and use mental-health evidence.
- Under AEDPA, a state court decision is reversible on federal habeas review when it unreasonably applies clearly established Supreme Court precedent in treating minimal examination-only assistance as sufficient.
- In habeas, even after identifying constitutional error, the court must assess prejudice under the Brecht standard unless otherwise resolved.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Alabama’s provision of only a state mental evaluation, coupled with denial of meaningful expert assistance and time to interpret late-disclosed mental-health evidence for mitigation, was an unreasonable application of Ake under AEDPA, requiring remand for harmless-error analysis.


McWilliams v. Dunn, 582 U.S. 183 (2017)