Opinion ID: 2973681
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Peyton’s Access to an Expert

Text: Third, Peyton claims that the district court erred in not compelling the physician at the jail to examine Peyton’s ears and testify as an expert on his behalf. Although the district court actually granted Peyton’s motion for examination by a physician, Peyton contends that the court erred in not ordering the physician at the jail to be his expert. This Court reviews issues of law de novo and reviews a district court’s denial of funds for an expert under the Criminal Justice Act for abuse of discretion. United States v. Osoba, 213 F.3d -8- 913, 915 (6th Cir. 2000). Peyton cites no authority to support his claim. In fact, independent research has failed to uncover a single case in which a court held it even permissible for a district court to order a particular physician to become an expert witness for a criminal defendant. This of course says nothing of Peyton’s argument that the district court was required to do so. The district court granted Peyton an opportunity to hire an independent physician to examine his ears. Peyton failed to do so and instead relied on a professional body piercing expert (whom the district court found to be a credible witness in all material respects). The district court did not abuse its discretion in handling this issue.