U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Criminal Procedure: The Constitutional Extent of the Adequate Tools of a Defense

NCJ Number
107912
Journal
Oklahoma Law Review Volume: 39 Issue: 2 Dated: (Summer 1986) Pages: 273-286
Author(s)
B Haugland
Date Published
1986
Length
14 pages
Annotation
The U.S. Supreme Court and most other courts now recognize that the State has the responsibility to make expert witnesses for indigent defendants.
Abstract
Prior to 1985 courts held that only the provision of defense counsel was constitutionally guaranteed to indigent defendants. However, the 1985 decision in Ake v. Oklahoma stated that indigents must be assured the 'adequate tools' of their defense. Since the Ake decision, Oklahoma has authorized only pyschiatrists needed to examine the defendant's sanity at the time of the offense. The applicability of the Ake decision to requests for other experts has not yet been resolved by either Oklahoma law or the Supreme Court. However, when the facts require a level of analysis that is beyond the general understanding of jurors, a court's refusal of defense experts is an endorsement of judicial inaccuracy. Defendants who have convinced the court that a requested expert is necessary should have access to that service. The burden of demonstrating this necessity is initially on the defendant. Courts should also grant the indigent assistance during the pretrial stage, upon an initial showing of need, to determine whether an expert will be necessary to adequately prepare the defense. 133 footnotes.