Opinion ID: 2966640
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Argument Respecting Procedure

Text: Bailey's next argument is that the district courtinappropriately and unconstitutionally protracted the process by which he sought to obtain money for investigators and experts. The argument goes that such protraction required Bailey to expend far more attorney time and resources than are envisioned under 18 U.S.C.§ 3006A and allowed by the United States Constitution. The essence of the argument is that the district court considered Bailey's various requests one at a time instead of all together, not that the necessary services were not provided. The series of motions is referred to in the statement of facts in the early part of this opinion. The rule in this circuit is that 14 Under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1) the district court may grant requests for expert services other than counsel upon a finding that the services are necessary and that the person is financially unable to obtain them. Jones v. Murray, 947 F.2d 1106, 1113 n. 4 (4th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1245 (1992). Three months prior to trial, Bailey had been granted additional counsel. About a month or more before trial, Bailey had had made available to him a forensic psychologist, a forensic pathologist and an addictionologist. And at least a week before trial, the court authorized a blood, hair and fiber expert. Bailey points to no prejudice on account of the dates of authorization of the experts except perhaps that his attorney may have been inconvenienced. The record does not show even that except by argument. We are of opinion the district court did not abuse its discretion in the order or dates of authorization of such services and that without prejudice there can be no constitutional violation. 8 Bailey's argument is without merit. Bailey also argues that the district court erred in disclosing to the prosecution information revealed to it in the ex parte motion made under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. Subsection (e) of that code section provides for application for investigation and expert services through an ex parte application. While the various applications for services were made ex parte, the district court, on April 18, 1995, unsealed the motion papers for the ex parte motions made to secure the services mentioned above. The government, however, correctly points out that with less than a month remaining for trial, the defendant had been detained and the trial had been continued once on motion of the defendant. The defendant had provided no discovery pursuant to the standard discovery _________________________________________________________________ 8 We do not imply that any prejudice which may exist brings on a constitutional violation. 15 order and, although the defense intended to introduce expert testimony with respect to Bailey's mental condition pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.2, the notice of intention to use such testimony had not been filed. For that reason, the court unsealed the ex parte motions and ordered both sides to immediately disclose all Jencks statements. Following that, the United States was able to have Bailey undergo a psychiatric examination and the trial proceeded as scheduled on May 16, 1995. The government even agrees that if no ameliorating factors were present in this case, the district court should not have unsealed the ex parte motions. The government argues, however, that under the facts of this case above related, the district court was justified in unsealing the motions, and we agree. In all events, Bailey is unable to point to any prejudice by the unsealing of the motions except that the mental processes of the defense attorneys may have been revealed by them. We do not believe this is sufficient and that a more concrete application to the case must be present to show prejudice, if any there be.