Home -> Law Blog Directory -> State Law Blogs -> Showmeblawgs

State Law

: Showmeblawgs

By stan_sipple

Missouri Court of Appeals Western District orders new trial for murder convict whose defense counsel failed to properly request a court-appointed psychiatric expert. While Sections 552.020 and 552.030 in some cases require the court to appoint an expert to make findings as to the defendant's mental condition relating to the crime, those statutes do not provide the type of expert assistance envisioned by Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985). Cornelle D. Williams, Appellant v. State of Missouri.: WD67306

"Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985), demands more in the form of expert assistance than chapter 552 provides. It is apparent that this issue cannot be avoided by allowing the defendant to call a chapter 552 expert as a witness. On the other hand, Ake expressly states that its holding does not produce a constitutional right for an indigent defendant to choose a psychiatrist of his liking or to receive funds for that purpose. Ake, 470 U.S. at 83. The solution that emerges is the appointment of a psychiatrist by the trial court, in situations where the Ake threshold has been met, to provide expert services to the defendant. This result is consistent with Ake's grouping of expert psychiatric assistance with assistance of counsel as basic tools to a defense. See Id. at 76-78. The appointed psychiatrist must, at minimum, be made available to the defendant for purposes of "conduct[ing] an appropriate examination and assist[ing] in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense." Id. at 83. As a result of Trial Counsel's failure to prove indigence, Williams was prevented from receiving the assistance of an appointed psychiatric expert to which he was entitled under Ake. Williams' ability to evaluate and assert the defense of insanity was crippled by his lack of access to a psychiatrist for those purposes. Operating in absence of such a basic trial tool, Williams was denied the opportunity for a fair trial with respect to the issue of his sanity and its effect on his responsibility for the crimes with which he was charged. Under these circumstances, this court finds that there does exist a reasonable probability that the outcome of trial would have been different had Williams been able to avail himself of his due process entitlement to the assistance of a psychiatric expert, such that confidence in the accuracy of the outcome is substantially undermined. Williams was prejudiced by Trial Counsel's failure prove indigence."

Full post as published by Showmeblawgs on March 29, 2008 (boomark / email).