Opinion ID: 750919
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: application for expert witness

Text: 17 The district court's denial of Fernandez's application, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (e)(1), is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Labansat, 94 F.3d 527, 530 (9th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 1013 (1997). Fernandez must show that the lack of an expert deprived him of effective assistance of counsel, by demonstrating both that reasonably competent counsel would have required the assistance of the requested expert for a paying client, and that he was prejudiced by the lack of expert assistance. Prejudice must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. Id. (citation omitted). 18 Fernandez has not established that reasonably competent counsel would have required the assistance of a surveillance photo expert under these circumstances. A jury would be just as capable of examining a still photo to determine whether its image matched that of Fernandez's car, and a photo could be easily enlarged or a magnifying glass could be used to assist the jury in that task. See e.g., United States v. Valverde, 846 F.2d 513, 517 (8th Cir.1988) (upholding the district court's denial of defendant's motion to obtain services of a linguistic expert to analyze tape recorded statement for expression of intent, finding that such an expert would not help the jury's evaluation of the tape recording). 19 Moreover, Fernandez cannot show by clear and convincing evidence that he was prejudiced by the district court's denial of his motion. By Fernandez's own account this expert testimony would not be sufficient to allow him to make a serious claim that he was not the one who robbed the Wells Fargo bank. 20 AFFIRMED.