Opinion ID: 1448154
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Funds for Expert Witness

Text: Ladoucer argues that the district court should have provided funding for an expert witness to examine the videotape recording of the transaction at Hartline's store to ensure that the recording had not been altered. We review a district court's denial of funding for an expert witness for abuse of discretion. United States v. Bertling, 370 F.3d 818, 820 (8th Cir.2004). The Criminal Justice Act Revision of 1986 permits a `financially unable' defendant to request funding for `investigative, expert, or other services necessary for adequate representation.' United States v. Ross, 210 F.3d 916, 921 (8th Cir.2000) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)). Ladoucer bears the burden of demonstrating that the expert is necessary to an adequate defense and must show a reasonable probability that the requested expert would aid in his defense and that denial of funding would result in an unfair trial. See Ross, 210 F.3d at 921. The decision to grant or deny funding for an expert witness ... is committed to the sound discretion of the district court and will not be reversed absent a showing of prejudice. Mentzos, 462 F.3d at 840. Ladoucer offered no evidence supporting his entirely speculative theory questioning the authenticity and accuracy of the videotape, nor did he specify how an expert would assist his defense. Therefore, he failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that an expert was necessary to his defense. See Ross, 210 F.3d at 921. Additionally, Ladoucer failed to show that the denial of funds for an expert resulted in prejudice. The Government presented multiple witnesses who testified to the accuracy of the videotape, and an ATF agent testified about the uncompromised chain of custody of the videotape. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ladoucer's request for expert funds.