Opinion ID: 701110
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Appointment of Defense Psychiatric Expert

Text: 14 Assuming Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985), applies to non-capital cases, we affirm the denial of Furlong's motion for the appointment of a defense psychiatric expert on the ground that Furlong failed to make the requisite threshold showing that his mental condition would be a significant factor in the criminal proceeding. See Williams v. Calderon, 52 F.3d 1465, 1473-74 (9th Cir. 1995). 15 Under United States v. Roe, 976 F.2d 1216 (9th Cir. 1992), downward departure because of the psychological effects of childhood abuse is permissible only in extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 1218. To show that his mental condition would be a significant factor at sentencing, Furlong was required to present at least some facts suggesting that the abuse he suffered had a significantly more serious mental and emotional impact than that in a typical case of abuse. 16 Furlong's evidence does not rise to this level. The psychologist's testimony, which the district court characterized as quite weak, contained only generalizations about victims of childhood sexual abuse. The abuse was referred to as extreme, but no details were offered. Beyond this characterization, the record contains no evidence that suggests Furlong's experience or its impact were extraordinary in comparison to those of other victims of sexual abuse. We conclude that Furlong did not make the requisite threshold showing to invoke his right to expert assistance. 1 17 AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED