Document: 470 U.S. 68 105 S.Ct. 1087 84 L.Ed.2d 53 Glen Burton AKE, Petitionerv.OKLAHOMA. No. 83-5424. Argued Nov. 7, 1984. Decided Feb. 26, 1985. Arthur B. Spitzer, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Michael C. Turpen, Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, Okl., respondent. Syllabus 1 Petitioner, an indigent, was charged with first-degree murder and shooting intent to kill. At his arraignment in trial court, behavior so bizarre that the judge, sua sponte, ordered him be examined by a psychiatrist. Shortly thereafter, examining psychiatrist found petitioner incompetent stand suggested he committed. But six weeks later, after being committed state mental hospital, competent on condition continue sedated within antipsychotic drug. The State then resumed proceedings, at pretrial conference petitioner's attorney informed court would raise insanity defense, requested psychiatric evaluation expense determine time of offense, claiming entitled such Federal Constitution. On basis United States ex rel. Smith v. Baldi, 344 561, 73 391, 97 L.Ed. 549, denied motion evaluation. guilt phase ensuing trial, psychiatrists testified dangerous society, but there no testimony as sanity offense. jury rejected convicted all counts. sentencing proceeding, asked death penalty counts, relying psychiatrists' establish likelihood future behavior. Petitioner had expert witness rebut this or give evidence mitigation punishment, sentenced death. Court Criminal Appeals affirmed convictions sentences. After rejecting, merits, federal constitutional claim that, indigent defendant, should have been provided services court-appointed psychiatrist, ruled waived not repeating request new trial. Held: 2 1. This has jurisdiction review case. Appeals' holding depended court's federal-law ruling consequently does present independent ground its decision. Pp. 74-75. 3 2. When defendant made preliminary showing offense is likely significant factor Constitution requires provide access psychiatrist's assistance issue if cannot otherwise afford one. 76-85. 4 (a) In determining whether, under what conditions, participation important enough preparation defense require are three relevant factors: (i) private interest will affected State's actions; (ii) safeguard provided; (iii) probable value additional substitute safeguards sought risk erroneous deprivation those provided. accuracy criminal proceeding almost uniquely compelling. denying substantial light compelling both accurate disposition. And without conduct professional examination issues help whether viable, testimony, assist preparing cross-examination witnesses, inaccurate resolution extremely high. particularly when able make parte threshold defense. 78-83. 5 (b) capital presents defendant's dangerousness, assistance, offer expert's opposing view, thereby loses opportunity jurors' minds questions about proof aggravating factor. circumstance, where consequence error great, relevance responsive evident, burden slim, due process issues, phase. 83-84. 6 (c) supra, authority absolving obligation 84-85. 7 3. record, it clear notice fact made. addition, dangerousness phase, entitle issue, denial deprived process. 86-87. 8 663 P.2d (Okl.Cr.App.1983), reversed remanded. 9 Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion Court. 10 case necessary prepare effective based condition, seriously question. 11 * Late 1979, Ake arrested murdering couple wounding their two children. He arraigned District Canadian County, Okla., February 1980. His arraignment, other prearraignment incidents jail, "for purpose advising impressions Defendant may need extended period observation." App. reported: "At times [Ake] appears frankly delusional. . claims 'sword vengeance' Lord sit left hand God heaven." Id., 8. diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic recommended prolonged 12 March, hospital respect "present sanity," i.e., competency April 10, less than months which indicted, chief forensic held hearing, testified: 13 "[Ake] psychotic diagnosis schizophrenia—chronic, exacerbation, current upset, addition dangerous. [B]ecause severity illness because intensities rage, poor control, delusions, maximum security facility within—I believe—the Psychiatric Hospital system." 11-12. 14 "mentally ill person care treatment" hospital. 15 Six become time, receiving 200 milligrams Thorazine, drug, daily, indicated continued receive dosage, remain stable. proceedings against Ake. 16 June, Ake's client To enable adequately, stated, examine During 3-month stay inquiry into and, could pay Counsel either arrange perform examination, funds allow judge counsel's argument Court's decision 549 (1953). 17 tried counts first degree, crime punishable Oklahoma, sole insanity. Although counsel called questioned each who none point. prosecution, turn, these performed seen results any diagnosing doctor replied not. As result, side jurors were instructed guilty reason did ability distinguish right from wrong alleged They further told presumed sane unless presented sufficient reasonable doubt time. If raised minds, informed, shifted prove beyond doubt.1 returned verdict 18 penalty. No presented. prosecutor relied significantly Ake, introduce behalf punishment. 500 years' imprisonment 19 appeal Appeals, argued argument, observing: "We numerous unique nature cases notwithstanding, responsibility providing indigents crimes." 1, (1983). Finding claims,2 We granted certiorari. 465 1099, 104 1591, 80 123 (1984). 20 hold Accordingly, we reverse. II 21 Initially, must address our merits claim, observed repeated waived. P.2d, 6. cited Hawkins State, 569 490 (Okla.Crim.App.1977), proposition. brief therefore rested adequate ought reviewed. Despite state-law ruling, conclude judgment rest properly exercised. 22 waiver rule apply fundamental error. See 493; Gaddis 447 42, 45-46 (Okla.Crim.App.1968). Under law, conceded oral errors "fundamental." Tr. Oral Arg. 51-52; see Buchanan 523 1134, 1137 (Okla.Crim.App.1974) (violation constitutes error); also Williams 658 499 (Okla.Crim.App.1983). Thus, application procedural bar depend antecedent is, determination Before applying doctrine question, rule, explicitly implicitly, 23 past, law question depends prong precluded. Herb Pitcairn, 324 117, 126, 65 459, 463, 89 789 (1945) ("We permitted render advisory opinion, same rendered corrected views laws, amount nothing more opinion"); Enterprise Irrigation Farmers Mutual Canal Co., 243 157, 164, 37 318, 320, 61 L.Ed 644 (1917) ("But non-Federal interwoven matter, breadth sustain other, plain"). case, integral disposition advisory. court—that challenge here waived—depends rendered. turn consideration claim. III 24 long recognized brings judicial power bear take steps assure fair elementary principle, grounded part Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee fairness, derives belief justice equal where, simply result poverty, participate meaningfully liberty stake. recognition right, 30 years ago once offers defendants cases, transcript appeal. Griffin Illinois, 351 12, 76 585, 100 891 (1956). Since then, required fee before filing conviction, Burns Ohio, 360 252, 79 1164, 1209 (1959), Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 779 (1963), direct Douglas California, 353, 814, 811 effective. Evitts Lucey, 469 387, 830, 821 (1985); Strickland 466 668, 2052, 674 (1984); McMann Richardson, 397 759, 771, n. 14, 90 1441, 1449, 25 763 (1970).3 Indeed, Little Streater, 452 101 2202, 627 (1981), principle meaningful "quasi-criminal" paternity action, deny putative father blood grouping tests, them. Meaningful consistent theme cases. mere courthouse doors itself proper functioning adversary process, fundamentally unfair proceeds making certain raw materials building while purchase wealthier counterpart might buy, Ross Moffitt, 417 600, 94 2437, 41 341 (1974), often reaffirmed fairness entitles "an fairly system," id., 612, S.Ct., 2444. implement focused identifying "basic tools appeal," Britt North Carolina, 404 226, 227, 92 431, 433, 400 (1971), 26 say basic course, merely begin inquiry. decide Three factors determination. action State. second governmental third sought, 6, 2205; Mathews Eldridge, 424 319, 96 893, 903, 47 (1976). standard us. 27 places individual's life host fashioned over diminish conviction stands testament concern. individual outcome effort overcome presumption innocence obvious weighs heavily analysis. 28 consider, next, asserts record us staggering Brief Respondent 46-47. unpersuaded assertion. Many States, well Government, currently available defendants, they financial great preclude assistance.4 especially limited provision one many limit recognize today. difficult identify economy, right. prevailing trial—unlike litigant—is necessarily tempered adjudication unlike litigant, legitimately assert maintenance strategic advantage cast pall obtained. substantial, dispositions. 29 Last, inquire offered. considering pivotal role psychiatry come play proceedings. More 40 decided through legislation entitled, circumstances, expertise.5 For example, subsection (e) Act, U.S.C. § 3006A, Congress shall experts "necessary defense." Numerous statutes reimbursement like standard. assured legislative courts interpreted issue.6 These decisions reflect reality today, namely, culpability punishment suffer, crucial marshal role, gather facts, interviews, elsewhere, share jury; analyze information gathered draw plausible conclusions effects disorder behavior; opinions how know probative ask party's interpret answers. Unlike lay can describe symptoms believe state, "elusive deceptive" insanity, Solesbee Balkcom, 339 9, 70 457, 458, 604 (1950), tell why observations relevant. Further, evidentiary rules, translate medical language trier fact, form meaning task hand. Through investigation, interpretation, ideally jurors, generally training matters, sensible educated 31 Psychiatry not, however, exact science, disagree widely frequently illness, appropriate attached given symptoms, cure treatment, dangerousness. Perhaps single, conclusion legal juries primary factfinders resolve differences profession offered party. inevitably complex foreign, "a virtual necessity plea chance success."7 By organizing history, behavior, information, interpreting expertise, laying out investigative analytic jury, party most truth It rely examiners, consultants, individuals do well, so.8 saying, neither approve nor disapprove widespread reliance instead unfairness contrary evolving practice. 32 foregoing leads inexorably With least manner, permit 33 A every unlikely kind described value, predictably height readily apparent. devastated absence testimony; success. potential jury's dramatically enhanced, interests fisc yield.9 34 demonstrates must, minimum, evaluation, preparation, presentation say, choose personal liking hire own. Our concern discussed, leave B 35 means presenting discussion compels similar context repeatedly too, profound assuring ultimate sanction erroneously imposed, monetary considerations persuasive variable focus therefore, area, attendant absence. 36 upheld practice placing Barefoot Estelle, 463 880, 896-905, 103 3383, 3396-3400, 77 1090 (1983), own, 899, 5, 3397, 5. holding, relied, part, assumption factfinder prosecutor's "opposing doctors" "uncover, recognize, account shortcomings" predictions 3397. Without well-informed C believed (1953), absolved completely reasons, disagree. First, Smith, McGarty O'Brien, 188 F.2d 151, 155 (CA1 1951), majority even whatsoever. Quite contrary, demonstrated neutral subject necessary. 568, 394; 192 540, 547 (CA3 1951). Similarly, McGarty, beholden prosecution. reject contention supports broad proposition "[t]here presently offense." Opposition received. 38 event, disagreement fundamental. That presence counsel. since elemental rights, enhanced attain signaled increased commitment Also, treatment sits paralyzed addressed them, surely remiss ignore extraordinarily today.10 Shifts areas convince altogether different variables, today result. IV 39 now standards facts us, one, Second, just four prompt competency. Third, shortly thereafter Fourth, only large doses Thorazine day, during Fifth, begun earlier. 35. Finally, recognizes initial producing falls defendant.11 Taken together, defense.12 treated posed threat continuing violence. Oklahoma's scheme, Okla.Stat., Tit. 21, 701.12(7) sentencing. process.13 reverse remand 42 ordered. 43 Chief BURGER, concurring judgment. 44 refuse "any whatsoever" obtain way "seriously issue." 45 confine actual finality sentence imposed warrants protections Nothing reaches non-capital 46 REHNQUIST, dissenting. holds "when one." Ante, 74. I think warrant establishment principle; factual predicate statement established, announced far too broad. entitlement consultant. 48 codefendant Hatch quit jobs oil field rig October borrowed car, went looking location burglarize. drove rural home Reverend Mrs. Richard Douglass, gained entrance ruse. Holding Douglass children, Brooks Leslie, gunpoint, ransacked home; bound gagged mother, father, son, forced them lie living room floor. took turns attempting rape 12-year-old Leslie nearby bedroom. Having failed efforts, her floor members family. 49 shot twice, once, .357 magnum pistol, fled. died immediately gunshot wound; Douglass' caused combination gunshots received, strangulation manner bound. managed untie themselves drive doctor. accomplice apprehended Colorado following month-long spree Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, western half States. 50 extradited November 20, placed city jail El Reno, Oklahoma. days arrest, speak Sheriff. gave Sheriff detailed concerning above crimes, taped, reduced written pages, corrected, signed 51 23, again appeared December 11th. Hatch's obtained order transferring 60-day observation trial; although 52 January 1980, hearing. suggestion commission formal became disruptive. Dr. William Allen, practice, hearing mentally transferred institution. institution advised began June withdrew pending sanity. Outside produced cellmate going try "play crazy." guilt, doctors confinement pursuant previous court. Each institution, express view Significantly, suffered some murders, specifically stated "no opinion" capacity speculate psychosis "apparent" makes point "there 72 (emphasis deleted). apparently existed actions bearing offense; "friends" proximate murders behest 54 states state-appointed trial." nowhere elucidate requirement satisfied particular initially Once satisfied, shifts doubt. introduced seems matter carry burden. Appeals. Ibid. 55 Nor surprising here. brutal perpetrated victims, seem adopt dubious mind commit murder. 44-page confession, month suggest insanity; failure move moved instance disruptive alertly responded committing examination. commenced sanity, said latter infer it. unwilling inference. 56 obligated furnish reasonably contests considerably greater this. violated lacks pursue thoroughly like. There trials assumes proving "future dangerousness" use carrying burden, "fundamental fairness" evaluate independently and—if contradict testimony. highly doubtful event afforded defendant. Patterson New York, 432 197, 2319, 281 (1977). essentially happened here, law. Due Process Clause superimposes find violation circumstances. 57 dangerousness," opposed support holding. Initially note reach dicta. prosecution witnesses. initiate line produce still witnesses benefit 58 agree grant "access added). attorney, whose job advocate. treats fact. "unfairness" arise hired opinion—whatever witness' conclusion—from acts office. answer prior testify called, "defense" 59 affirm Stat., 152 provides "[a]ll persons capable except belonging classes (4) Lunatics, insane unsound mind, including temporarily partially reason, upon act incapable knowing wrongfulness." "which remains until raises, evidence, crime. raised, State." (1983) (case below); Rogers 634 743 (Okla.Crim.App.1981). dismissed unable understand acknowledged "stared vacantly ahead throughout trial" word influence 7-8, petitioned writ certiorari well. presented, recently discussed played separate related inquiries protection trigger. Lucey; Bearden Georgia, 461 660, 2064, 221 Ala.Code 15-12-21 (Supp.1984); Alaska Stat.Ann. 18.85.100 (1981); Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 13-4013 (1978) (capital cases; noncapital Peeler, 126 Ariz. 254, 614 335 (App.1980)); Ark.Stat.Ann. 17-456 (Supp.1983); Cal.Penal Code Ann. 987.9 (West Supp.1984) People Worthy, 109 Cal.App.3d 514, 167 Cal.Rptr. 402 (1980)); Colo.Rev.Stat. 18-1-403 Clemons, 168 Conn. 395, 363 A.2d (1975); Del.Code Ann., 29, 4603 (1983); Fla.Rule Crim.Proc. 3.216; Haw.Rev.Stat. 802-7 Olin, Idaho 648 203 (1982); Watson, Ill.2d 228, N.E.2d 645 (1966); Owen 272 Ind. 122, 396 376 (1979) (trial authorize appoint necessary); Iowa Rule 19; Kan.Stat.Ann. 22-4508 Ky.Rev.Stat. §§ 31.070, 31.110, 31.185 (1980); Madison, 345 So.2d 485 (La.1977); Anaya, 456 1255 (Me.1983); Mass.Gen.Laws ch. 261, 27C(4) Supp.1984-1985); Mich.Comp.Laws 768.20a(3) Minn.Stat. 611.21 Miss.Code 99-15-17 Mo.Rev.Stat. 552.030.4 Mont.Code 46-8-201 Suggett, Neb. 693, 264 N.W.2d 876 (discretion rests court); Nev.Rev.Stat. 7.135 N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. 604-A:6 N.M.Stat.Ann. 31-16-2, 31-16-8 N.Y.County Law 722-c (McKinney Supp. 1984-1985); N.C.Gen.Stat. 7A-454 Ohio Rev.Code 2941.51 Ore.Rev.Stat. 135.055(4) Commonwealth Gelormo, 327 Pa.Super. 219, 475 765, 769, R.I.Gen.Laws 9-17-19 S.C.Code 17-3-80 S.D.Codified Laws 23A-40-8 Tenn.Code 40-14-207 Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann., Art. 26.05 (Vernon Supp.1984); Utah 77-32-1 Wash.Rev.Code 10.77.020, 10.77.060 (see Cunningham, Wash.App. 517, 1211 (1977)); W.Va.Code 29-21-14(e)(3) Wyo.Stat. 7-1-108; 7-1-110; 7-1-116 4, supra. Gardner, Myth Impartial Expert—Some Comments Concerning Responsibility Decline Age Therapy, & Psychology Rev. 99, 113-114 "[t]estimony emanating depth scope specialized knowledge very impressive jury. another source effect." F. Bailey H. Rothblatt, Investigation Preparation Cases 175 (1970); ABA Standards 5-1.4, Commentary, p. 5-20 (2d ed. 1980) ("The quality representation excellent yet valueless available"). Reilly Barry, 250 N.Y. 456, 461, 166 N.E. 165, (1929) (Cardozo, C.J.) ("[U]pon forgery, [A] disadvantage, poverty parry own thrusts him"); I. Goldstein Lane, Trial Techniques 14.01 1969) ("Modern civilization, complexities business, professions, necessity. true matters involved general average juror"); Henning, Psychiatrist Legal Process, Reason Insanity: Essays 217, 219-220 (L. Freedman ed., 1983) (discussing growing changing definitions acceptance practice). concedes exists argues implicated 45; 52. always outweigh interest. supra 8; 99; Huckabee, Lawyers, Psychiatrists law: Cooperation Chaos? 179-181 (1980) reasons shift toward psychiatrists); Resolving Problem Dominance Decisions: Proposal, Sw.L.J. 790 (1973). factors, alone combination, finding. Because guaranteed denied, occasion consider applicability Equal Protection Clause, Sixth Amendment, context.

Category: 1