Opinion ID: 310291
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Need for an Ex Parte Hearing

Text: 25 Section 3006A states that eligibility for appointment under the section will be determined in an ex parte proceeding. 13 The Fifth and the Tenth Circuits have repeatedly held that failure to accord an ex parte hearing is reversible error. 14 We agree that the statutory scheme means that not to provide an opportunity for an ex parte hearing on the matter does constitute error. 26 We are satisfied that the 15 February 1972 letter of appellant's trial counsel to the trial judge was an ex parte submission of the issue to the trial judge. The matter was only raised at the 20 March 1972 calendar call because the request had not yet been acted on. The attendance and participation of the prosecutor at the disposition of appellant's request was in violation of the statute's requirements. 27 Trial counsel did not, however, object at the time to the presence of the prosecutor, or to the prosecutor's repeated intervention in a matter which by the plain language of the statute was definitely none of his business. However, as noted above, we do not yet know to what extent, if any, appellant was prejudiced by the failure to appoint a psyciatrist. It seems likely that the degree to which appellant's rights were affected by the failure to conduct an ex parte hearing may be closely related to the degree of prejudice caused by the failure to appoint a psychiatrist under Sec. 3006A. We, therefore, reach no conclusion and make no holding on this issue at this time.