Opinion ID: 2982483
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Funds for a Private Investigator

Text: Lastly, Darwich argues the district court denied him due process and a fair trial by denying his requests for funds for a private investigator (“PI”) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. “We review the district court’s denial of an indigent defendant’s request for authorization for investigative services under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Pacheco, 466 F. App’x 517, 521 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing United States v. Gilmore, 282 F.3d 398, 406 (6th Cir. 2002)). 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1) permits district courts to authorize payment for investigative services for an indigent defendant. Id. District courts may authorize investigative services “‘upon a demonstration that (1) such services are necessary to mount a plausible defense, and (2) without such authorization, the defendant’s case would be prejudiced.’” Id. (citing Gilmore, 282 F.3d at 406). Throughout the pendency of his case, Darwich made numerous motions requesting funds for a PI. The district court denied all of those motions for failure to establish necessity. Darwich does not specify the orders of which he seeks review, but we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying any of Darwich’s § 3006A(e)(1) motions. First, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Darwich’s early motions for a PI as they consisted of only general averments that he required a PI to aid in his defense and did not specify what he expected the PI to find. The district court likewise did not abuse its discretion in denying Darwich’s later motions for a PI. Although his later motions specified the various topics that he intended the PI to 21 United States v. Darwich Case No. 13-1723 investigate and the various tasks he required the PI to undertake, a review of those reasons and tasks confirms that Darwich still failed to establish necessity because he sought “information as to issues already definitively decided by the court, information which is irrelevant, or, most prominently, information which could be obtained through Defendant’s stand-by counsel.” Furthermore, we agree with the district court that Darwich failed to show that his stand-by counsel was incapable of completing, or at least starting, the tasks for which Darwich sought a PI. Accordingly, although Darwich was indigent, he failed to show through any of his motions that appointment of a PI, especially in light of his stand-by counsel, was necessary to mount a plausible defense. The district court thus did not abuse its discretion in denying any of Darwich’s motions for a PI, and we decline to vacate his judgment of conviction or sentence on this ground.