Opinion ID: 75487
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: denial of sufficient funds to hire a forensic pathologist

Text: 158 Grayson's trial counsel sought funds to hire an expert forensic pathologist to refute and cross-examine the findings of the State's (a) forensic pathologist who performed Mrs. Orr's autopsy and (b) serology expert who examined blood and sperm samples taken from the crime scene. The trial court granted the motion up to the $500 statutory maximum allotted by the Alabama legislature. Grayson contends that his due process rights were violated because the $500 allowed was patently insufficient to retain competent forensic expertise. 159 The Supreme Court set forth the standards governing a criminal defendant's due process rights to appropriate expert assistance in Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985). In Ake, the Supreme Court held that when a defendant has made a preliminary showing that his sanity at the time of the offense is likely to be a significant factor at trial, the Constitution requires that a State provide access to a psychiatrist's assistance on this issue if the defendant cannot otherwise afford one. Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 74 (1985). In reaching this decision, the Supreme Court noted that there is no general obligation for a State to purchase for an indigent defendant all the assistance that his wealthier counterpart might buy. Rather, due process requires that an indigent defendant be given the basic tools necessary to present his defense. Taking into account the defendant's interest in the accuracy of the criminal proceeding, the limited financial burden imposed upon the State, and the value of psychiatric assistance in presenting an insanity defense, the Supreme Court found that such expert psychiatric assistance in investigating and presenting an insanity defense clearly constituted such a basic tool. Id. at 77-83. 160 The Court emphasized that the entitlement to psychiatric assistance exists only in cases where a defendant's mental condition is seriously in question and that the State's obligation did not go beyond providing the defense with the assistance of one competent psychiatric expert. Further, the Court found that the states could provide such assistance as they saw fit and that a defendant's constitutional right did not include the authority to choose a psychiatrist of his personal liking or to receive funds to hire his own. Id. at 82-83. 161 In this case, Grayson argues that his due process rights were violated not because of his need for expert psychiatric assistance, but because the trial court failed to award adequate funding to hire an expert pathologist. Neither the Supreme Court, nor this court, has held that the Constitution requires a state to provide an indigent defendant with nonpsychiatric experts. Baxter v. Thomas, 45 F.3d 1501, 1511 n.24 (11th Cir. 1995) (citing Moore v. Kemp, 809 F.2d 702, 711-12 (11th Cir. 1987) (en banc) and Stephens v. Kemp, 846 F.2d 642, 646 (11th Cir. 1988)). 22 As this court has done before, however, we will assume, without deciding, that the due process clause could require the government, both state and federal, to provide nonpsychiatric expert assistance to an indigent defendant upon a sufficient showing of need. Moore v. Kemp, 809 F.2d 702, 711-12 (11th Cir. 1987) (en banc); see also Stephens v. Kemp, 846 F.2d 642, 646 (11th Cir. 1988). 162 Even assuming arguendo that Ake applies to nonpsychiatric assistance, we find that Grayson's due process claim lacks merit. Grayson's trial was not rendered fundamentally unfair by the absence of defense experts in forensic pathology and serology. This was not a case where the identity of the perpetrator of the crime was in question. Grayson admitted both before trial and from the stand that he had broken into Mrs. Orr's home, taped the pillow case over her head, and raped her. Indeed, the forensic evidence developed by the State was largely inconclusive as to Grayson's participation in the crime and it was Grayson's admissions that established the case against him. Thus, a defense expert to challenge what little forensic evidence was developed that tended to show that Grayson had committed the rapes and the killing, would have been useless in exonerating Grayson. See Stephens, 846 F.2d at 650 (In light of the overwhelming evidence that Stephens did not act in self-defense, the expert testimony sought by the defendant would not have affected the outcome of the trial.). 163 Furthermore, to the extent that forensic evidence may have been helpful in supporting Grayson's theory that he did not intend Mrs. Orr's death, the absence of this evidence in no way rendered the trial fundamentally unfair. Grayson's counsel deftly highlighted the evidence from the autopsy doctor tending to show a lack of intent without the assistance of an expert: the absence of life threatening injuries, the slow death by suffocation, the absence of restraints on Mrs. Orr's hands, and the autopsy doctor's ability to remove the pillowcase without removing the tape. Further, the testimony offered by Dr. Burton in connection with Grayson's state habeas proceedings regarding the forensic evidence was largely cumulative of the findings of the autopsy doctor at trial and failed to add material information helpful to the defense theory of intent. Therefore, Grayson's claim that the denial of sufficient funds to retain forensic experts violated his due process rights also lacks merit. 23