In the heart of Lamar County, a high-stakes capital murder case recently unfolded, makings its way to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. This case, Brandon Dewayne Sykes v. State of Alabama, highlights the delicate nature of criminal procedure, strengthening the notion that constitutional rights are uncompromisable, even in serious criminal proceedings.

Sykes and his ex-wife, Keshia were divorced in 2014, with the relationship ending for good in early 2015. During their divorce proceedings, Keshia received custody of both of their children due to allegations of abuse. Sykes had concerns about this arrangement, however, when Keshia began living with another man, who had pending charges for a sex offense involving a minor. Sykes attempted to remedy through the problem through legal channels but grew frustrated when his efforts remained fruitless. Keshia eventually moved out from her home with the man, settling into a house next door to her parents.

On the morning of February 18, 2015, Keshia received a call from her mother. She had spotted Sykes sitting in his truck across the street from her work and notified her daughter when she saw Sykes drive away. Unable to reach her daughter, Keshia’s mother returned home, and was met with a disturbing scene. Her home was in a disarray, with several items missing, and bloodstains matching Keshia found across the house. Keshia had been at home with one of the children, and the child was found at Sykes’ sister’s home.

Sykes claimed to have an alibi, but Keshia’s blood was found in his truck. Keshia’s cell phone was also linked to Sykes, with the phone turning up after being stolen from Skyes’ house. Sykes claimed he had connections to a Memphis cartel, and insisted that they, not he, were responsible for harming Keshia. While held in the Pickens County Jail, Sykes frequently made conversation with a former fishing partner. Sykes admitted to his old friend that he “beat her up” and “took her and dumped her body where we used to go fishing.” Despite this testimony and an identification of the location, police were unable to located Keshia’s body. Still, Sykes was convicted of capital murder for intentionally killing his ex-wife during a first-degree burglary and during the commission of a kidnapping. Sykes was unanimously sentenced to death.

On appeal, Sykes took issue with a statement made by the prosecution during rebuttal closing arguments. The prosecutor stated that “there’s only two people in the world that know what happened in that house. One of them’s dead, and the other one is sitting right over there at the end of that table.” Sykes interpreted this statement as a direct comment on his decision not to testify and argued that the circuit court was required to address this error promptly.

To review Sykes’ claims, the Court looking to the Alabama Constitution and Code. Under the written laws of this state, defendants such as Sykes cannot be forced to testify against themselves. Further, standing precedent clarifies the responsibility this places on prosecutors, holding that direct comments on an exercise of constitutional rights, including choosing not to testify, creates a highly prejudicial impact, and is therefore violative of the defendant’s rights. Accordingly, Sykes’ convictions and death sentence were reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

The case of Brandon Dewayne Sykes v. State of Alabama stands as an example of the rigid approach that applies when constitutionally guaranteed rights are in question. Even with strong evidence against Sykes, the prosecution could not prejudice the jury against him for exercising his constitutional rights. The Court overturned Sykes’ sentence over a single statement, emphasizing the Court’s zero-tolerance approach to constitutional violations.