Opinion ID: 6107856
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ake and McWilliams

Text: The Supreme Court of the United States held in Ake , 470 U.S. 68 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 , 84 L.Ed.2d 53 , 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 , 470 U.S. at 74 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 . This preliminary showing includes that (1) the defendant is an indigent defendant, 470 U.S. at 70 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 ; (2) his  mental condition was relevant to ... the punishment he might suffer, 470 U.S. at 80 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 ; and (3) his sanity at the time of the offense ... was seriously in question. 470 U.S. at 70 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 . Once that preliminary showing is made, the State must at a minimum, assure the defendant access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense. Ake , 470 U.S. at 83 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 (emphasis added). Courts in other jurisdictions have split over their interpretation of the requirements articulated in Ake . The Eleventh Circuit noted that [i]n some jurisdictions, a court-appointed neutral mental health expert made available to all parties may satisfy Ake . See Miller v. Colson , 694 F.3d 691 , 697-99 (6th Cir. 2012) (discussing the split amongst Sixth Circuit decisions that address whether a neutral mental health expert satisfies Ake ), cert. denied ; Granviel v. Lynaugh , 881 F.2d 185 , 191-92 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that Ake is met when the government provides a defendant with neutral psychiatric assistance), cert. denied. Other circuits have held that the state must provide a non-neutral mental health expert to satisfy Ake . See United States v. Sloan , 776 F.2d 926 , 929 (10th Cir. 1985) (holding that a defendant is entitled to independent, non-neutral psychiatric assistance); Smith v. McCormick , 914 F.2d 1153 , 1158 (9th Cir. 1990) ([U]nder Ake , evaluation by a 'neutral' court psychiatrist does not satisfy due process.). However, the United States Supreme Court has thus far declined to resolve this disagreement among the circuits. See Miller , 694 F.3d at 697 n. 6 ; Granviel v. Texas , 495 U.S. 963 , 110 S.Ct. 2577 , 109 L.Ed.2d 758 (1990) (denying certiorari). As a result, the State's provision of a neutral psychologist would not be contrary to, or involve[ ] an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1).