Opinion ID: 1057579
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: the denial of mr. hester's request to retain an expert statistician

Text: Mr. Hester takes issue with the trial court's denial of his request for funds to retain an expert in statistics and demographics to assist him in assembling the required data to make a prima [facie] showing of unconstitutional composition, and then to testify concerning this data at an evidentiary hearing. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that [b]ecause the defendant failed to show a particularized need for an expert statistician, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request. State v. Hester, 2009 WL 275760, at . Like the Court of Criminal Appeals, we have concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to allocate resources for a demographics and statistics expert. Pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-14-207(b) (1997), [42] [i]n capital cases where the defendant has been found to be indigent..., [the] court ... may, in its discretion, determine that investigative or expert services or other similar services are necessary to ensure that the constitutional rights of the defendant are properly protected. The trial court's rulings with regard to these expert services will not be overturned unless the trial court's decision constitutes an abuse of discretion. State v. Smith, 993 S.W.2d 6, 28 (Tenn.1999) (appendix); State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253, 261 (Tenn.1994). To warrant reversal for failure of a trial court to allocate resources for expert assistance, a defendant must show the existence of a particularized need for the allocation of resources for expert assistance. State v. Dellinger, 79 S.W.3d 458, 469 (Tenn.2002); State v. Barnett, 909 S.W.2d 423, 430 (Tenn.1995); State v. Shepherd, 902 S.W.2d 895, 904 (Tenn. 1995); State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 192 (Tenn.1992). In order to demonstrate a particularized need, a defendant must first establish that he or she will not have a fair trial without the requested expert assistance. State v. Dellinger, 79 S.W.3d at 469; State v. Scott, 33 S.W.3d 746, 753 (Tenn.2000); State v. Barnett, 909 S.W.2d at 430-31. The defendant must also establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requested expert assistance will materially assist him or her in preparing or presenting his or her case. State v. Dellinger, 79 S.W.3d at 469; State v. Scott, 33 S.W.3d at 753; State v. Barnett, 909 S.W.2d at 430-31. Defendants do not have an inherent statutory or constitutional right to a statistics or demographics expert to address issues related to determining whether a jury venire represents a fair cross-section of the community. Gobert, Jury Selection § 6:11. However, circumstances may arise in which a particularized need for a statistician or demographics expert would require the appointment of such an expert. These circumstances have been limited to cases where there is a substantial disparity between the representation of constitutionally distinctive groups in the jury venire and the community. [43] When Mr. Hester requested leave to retain a statistician, the evidence showed an absolute disparity of Hispanics of .8% and an absolute disparity of African-Americans of .7%. The comparative disparity for Hispanics was 44.4%, and the comparative disparity for African-Americans was 15.56%. In light of the relatively small size of these minority communities in McMinn County, these variances are simply insufficient to warrant a finding that the trial court abused its discretion by declining to permit Mr. Hester to retain a statistician. Our conclusion in this case is bolstered by the demonstrated familiarity and skill of Mr. Hester's lead counsel in presenting legal arguments based on statistical analysis. Accordingly, we decline to find that the trial court erred by failing to find a particularized need for the appointment of an expert statistician in this case.