This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
In McWilliams v. Dunn, petitioner James E. McWilliams seeks an independent psychiatric expert for his defense, while the State of Alabama contends that the assistance already provided under *Ake* – a neutral expert – satisfies his entitlement.
Background and question before the Court
The core issue is whether *Ake* requires the state to provide a neutral expert only, or whether it obligates the state to furnish an independent expert who works as part of the defense team.
What each side argues
Petitioner (James E. McWilliams)
According to Mr. McWilliams, mcWilliams argues that he is entitled to an independent psychiatric expert to assist his defense.
Respondent (State of Alabama)
According to State of Alabama, the State contends that McWilliams has already received everything he is entitled to under *Ake* – a neutral expert – and is not entitled to any additional assistance.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts: "We'll hear argument first this morning in Case 16-5294, McWilliams v. Dunn."
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer: "WHERE, SOMEWHERE ELSE, DOES IT BECOME APPARENT THAT HE WANTS THE STATE TO APPOINT AN EXPERT? WHERE? I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHERE."
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy: "Suppose the Judge, the court, appoints the head of the psychiatric department at a distinguished private university, one person, and he comes in and he tells the defense counsel, now I'm going to explain to you what all these terms mean."
According to Justice Kagan, justice Kagan: "Sorry, General, but if we could just focus on -- because I think it would help to just sort of -- let's assume for the moment that this defendant did not get what he was asking for, which was a defense expert, and say whether Ake entitled him to such an expert."
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg: "Is there any jurisdiction that holds that today, that all that Ake requires is a neutral expert? I thought by now every jurisdiction recognizes that Ake requires an expert who will be, essentially, part of the defense team."
Justice Kennedy: "Well, if Ake says that you have a right to meaningful assistance from a psychiatrist, you, the defense, and then over time it becomes clear to us that that psychiatrist must be retained for the benefit of the defense only, is that a new clearly established holding, or is it simply a refinement of a clearly established right that was set forth in Ake?"
- [1] 6128cdfc6bfb1a9db71f-r1-7d518b92c0ea68e3.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 6128cdfc6bfb1a9db71f-r1-7d518b92c0ea68e3.pdf, p. 21
- [3] 6128cdfc6bfb1a9db71f-r1-7d518b92c0ea68e3.pdf, p. 23
- [4] 6128cdfc6bfb1a9db71f-r1-7d518b92c0ea68e3.pdf, p. 30
- [5] 6128cdfc6bfb1a9db71f-r1-7d518b92c0ea68e3.pdf, p. 40
- [6] 6128cdfc6bfb1a9db71f-r1-7d518b92c0ea68e3.pdf, p. 41
What the Court decided
Why it matters
The case addresses whether defendants have a constitutional right to an independent expert who works as part of the defense team.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 6128cdfc6bfb1a9db71f-r1-7d518b92c0ea68e3.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 25, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.