U.S. Supreme Court
McWilliams v. Dunn
No. 16-5294 6/19/17
Issue:
Does conducting a psychiatric evaluation of the defendant and providing the defense with a report satisfy the Ake standard for appointed expert witnesses?
Holding:
No. Ake requires that the defense have access to a competent psychiatrist not only to conduct an examination, but also to evaluate the report and help with preparation and presentation of the evidence at trial. This can be met by retaining an expert to work specifically for the defense team, but the Court did not decide whether doing so is required to meet the Ake standard. Read opinion.
Dissent (Alito, J.):
Review in this case was granted to answer whether Ake requires the appointment of a psychiatric expert as a member of the defense team rather than a neutral expert available to both parties. The Court should answer in the negative and affirm the judgment below.
Commentary:
This decision may not change the practice with regard to defense requests for expert assistance, but the Court does appear to move a little closer to holding that Ake requires a defense expert (not just an independent expert) for significant mental health claims. Prosecutors do not often get involved in these questions, but especially in a death penalty case or an insanity case, make your trial judge aware of this decision.
5th Circuit Court of Appeals
Alvarez v. City of Brownsville
No. 16-40772 6/26/17
Issue:
May a defendant who pled guilty, but was subsequently found actually innocent, make a §1983 civil rights claim against a city for withholding Brady material?
Holding:
No. To prevail in a §1983 claim, a plaintiff must prove a constitutional violation. A defendant does not have a constitutional right to impeachment or exculpatory evidence prior to entering a guilty plea. Brady material is important in relation to the fairness of a trial but does not affect whether a plea is voluntary. Read opinion.
Commentary:
This decision represents an application of prior decisions from the Fifth Circuit, which applied and/or extended the 2002 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Ruiz. Be cautious about applying this decision in state court, however. The Michael Morton Act provides greater protection than the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, this case dealt with whether officials should have been held liable for failing to comply with Brady, not whether the defendant’s conviction should have been overturned (this defendant’s conviction had already been overturned).
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Because the Texas Courts website (which includes all the state’s appellate courts) was down at press time, Court of Criminal Appeals opinions from June 28 will be summarized in next week’s weekly case summaries email.
Texas Courts of Appeals
London v. State
No. 01-13-00441-CR 6/27/17
Issue:
Does the assessment of statutory court costs for witness subpoenas in criminal cases violate the Sixth Amendment when applied to an indigent defendant who pled guilty?
Holding:
No. The defendant’s as-applied challenge failed because he did not present any evidence that material, favorable witnesses were available to be called. Furthermore, the defendant pled guilty the day before trial started and was therefore required to pay the subpoena fees for State witnesses whether he chose to continue with the jury trial or not. The statutory fees could not have denied the defendant his right to confront witnesses when he would have been in no worse position to insist on his right to a trial if the witnesses had been available for cross examination. Read Opinion.
Dissent (Jennings, J.):
“What makes [Code of Criminal Procedure] article 102.011(a)(3) unconstitutional as applied to [the defendant] is that it required him, an indigent criminal defendant, to pay for the witnesses that the State subpoenaed to testify against him. In other words, although [the defendant] had a fundamental constitutional right to physically confront the witnesses who were to testify against him, the only way he was able to secure that right was by bearing the State’s costs for it. In effect, he is being penalized for initially setting his case for trial. Given [the defendant’s] inability to pay such costs, article 102.011(a)(2) is unconstitutional as applied to him.” Read opinion.
Commentary:
Issues regarding court costs appear to have a great deal of life left in them. The dispute among the justices in this case might mean that this case will again be reviewed by the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Texas Attorney General Request for Opinion
Request sent 6/23/17
Question:
May an attorney serving a county pursuant to a collection contract under Article 103.0031 of the Code of Criminal Procedure collect delinquent restitution owed to a crime victim? Read request.
Announcements
Online registration for TDCAA’s popular Legislative Update series is now open! For more information or to register online, visit https://www.tdcaa.com/content/2017-tdcaa-legislative-updates
TDCAA is now taking pre-orders for its 2017 code books. For more information or to place an order, visit http://www.tdcaa.com/publications
Applications are being accepted for the National Computer Forensics Institute courses for prosecutors! For more information, visit http://www.tdcaa.com/announcements/national-computer-forensics-institute-courses-prosecutors