Opinion ID: 156210
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Appointment of Psychologist

Text: 24 Aragon next argues the district court erred by refusing her request for expert services under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA). The CJA provides that district courts shall authorize counsel of indigent defendants to retain experts upon finding that the expert services are necessary for adequate representation and that the defendant is financially unable to obtain the services. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1). In an ex parte motion filed with the district court prior to sentencing, Aragon's counsel requested that the court authorize the hiring of a psychologist, stating that [i]f a psychologist could examine certain issues and facts concerning her background, there may be some factual grounds under the [Sentencing Guidelines] for a departure of a kind not taken into consideration by the Guideline Commission. In support of the request, counsel stated that there may be an issue of the defendant's age in relation to Mr. Erenio Perez, her husband and co-defendant.... This issue arises because of the death at a very young age of [her] natural father. The district court denied the motion, stating that [a]ll of the reasons set forth by [Aragon] for seeking the services of a psychologist have already been expressly considered by the Guidelines. 25 At sentencing, the district court held a closed hearing to again consider Aragon's request for the appointment of a psychologist. Aragon's counsel stated that if a psychologist examined Aragon, the psychologist may find that Aragon's dependence on Erenio was so extraordinary that it should be taken into account under the Sentencing Guidelines in allowing a downward departure. Counsel admitted that he did not know whether such dependence existed, but argued that without a psychological evaluation, he could not know. The district court again denied Aragon's request. 26 On appeal, Aragon argues the district court abused its discretion in refusing to appoint a psychologist. To obtain expert services under the CJA, a defendant must do more than allege that the services would be helpful. United States v. Kennedy, 64 F.3d 1465, 1470 (10th Cir.1995). The burden is on the defendant to show with particularity that the requested services are necessary to present an adequate defense. See Castro v. Ward, No. 97-6179, 1998 WL 113193, at  16 (10th Cir. Mar.2, 1998).  '[U]ndeveloped assertions that the requested assistance would be beneficial'  to the defense are not sufficient to satisfy this burden. Matthews v. Price, 83 F.3d 328, 335 (10th Cir.1996) (quoting Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 323 n. 1, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985)); see also Liles v. Saffle, 945 F.2d 333, 336 (10th Cir.1991) (General allegations supporting a request for court appointment of a psychiatric expert, without substantive supporting facts, ... will not suffice to require the appointment of a psychiatrist to aid in the preparation of a criminal defense.). This court reviews the denial of a request for expert services under the CJA for abuse of discretion. See Kennedy, 64 F.3d at 1465. 27 In her brief, Aragon states that she requested a psychologist to see if there were any problems that could have led to her being involved with Mr. Erenio Perez. She further states that [i]t is not outside the realm of possibility that [she] could have been suffering from some ... unhealthy dependence upon Mr. Erenio Perez. These general assertions, particularly in light of Aragon's two previous convictions for possession of methamphetamine, fail to demonstrate the necessity of a psychologist's services to the presentation of her defense. See, e.g., id. at 1470. We therefore find no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of her request.