Opinion ID: 684947
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Investigative Funds

Text: 9 Arlt maintains that the district court abused its discretion in denying him funds for an investigator under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3006A(e)(1). Arlt maintains that he required the funds to locate two men whom he claims to have hired to investigate the activities of one of his associates in order to verify that she was not using the acid to manufacture methamphetamine, thus buttressing his claim that he was unaware that the hydriodic acid he supplied was used for illicit purpose. In addition, he claims that he required a mining expert to assist him in his testimony concerning his mining activities. 10 In order to succeed on his claim, Arlt must show that a reasonable counsel would have required the investigative services and that the denial of the request prevented him from receiving effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. United States v. Smith, 893 F.2d 1573 (9th Cir.1990). We cannot reverse the district court's decision unless the defendant provides clear and convincing evidence of prejudice. Mason v. Arizona, 504 F.2d 1345, 1352 (9th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 936 (1975). 11 Even if the district court abused its discretion in denying Arlt's request, Arlt has not demonstrated that its failure to authorize funds prevented him from receiving effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Arlt has not offered any substantial evidence that two corroborating witnesses for part of his testimony or the assistance of a mining expert would have changed the outcome of the trial, especially in light of the overwhelming evidence that Arlt was using gold mining as a front for his illicit activities. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 (noting that a verdict with overwhelming record support is unlikely to be affected by errors).