Opinion ID: 1297721
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Ramdass's Motion for Ex parte Hearing Relating to Experts

Text: Ramdass, an indigent, maintains that the court erred in denying an ex parte hearing of his motion for the appointment of a medical doctor and a private investigator to assist in his defense. [5] Ramdass argues that because he must make a threshold showing of the significance of the expert's testimony to obtain such appointments, an ex parte hearing is required to avoid a disclosure of his potential defenses to the Commonwealth's Attorney. Accordingly, Ramdass argues, the court's denial of his request violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, and Article I Section 8 and 9 of the Virginia Constitution. However, Ramdass offers no persuasive argument or authority supporting this contention. Indeed, none of the cases he cites deals with the constitutional rights he asserts in this case. Most of those cases deal with the application of a federal statute creating a right to an ex parte hearing when an indigent requests expert assistance in a federal action. 18 U.S.C.§ 3006A(e) (1993). We perceive no reason to depart from our previous holding that there is no constitutional right to such a hearing. O'Dell, 234 Va. at 686, 364 S.E.2d at 499. Hence, we find no merit in this assignment.