Opinion ID: 160936
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Funds for Investigative and Expert Assistance

Text: 23 Rojem argues the state courts and federal district court violated his constitutional rights, including his right to effective assistance of counsel, by denying him funds for investigative and expert assistance. He believes having an investigator to pursue potential suspects and new evidence may prove someone else committed the crime. Although the federal district court granted broad discovery, Rojem contends this had limited value without assistance. 24 On direct appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in part concluded the trial court properly denied funds because (1) Rojem made undeveloped assertions, insufficient to qualify for funds, Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 323-24 n.1 (1985); (2) counsel cross-examined state experts and elicited the limitations of the tests and examinations performed and (3) the State need not provide an indigent defendant with an investigator simply because a wealthier defendant could afford one. Rojem, 753 P.2d at 364. On review of the denial of Rojem's first post-conviction application, the court found any lack-of-funds argument unpersuasive, because Rojem did not assert newly discovered evidence and the constitutional issues he raised did not require expert witnesses to examine evidence. Rojem, 829 P.2d at 684. Also, because experts were unnecessary and irrelevant, the court did not analyze counsel's effectiveness. Id. In reviewing denial of the second post-conviction application, the court again refused to consider a funding issue, given the limited value of Rojem's newly discovered evidence. 6 Rojem, 925 P.2d at 76. 25 A state must provide an indigent defendant with the basic tools to present an adequate defense or appeal. Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 77 (1985). We consider three factors to determine what tools are required: 26 (1) the effect on [Rojem's] private interest in the accuracy of the trial if the requested service is not provided; (2) the burden on the government's interest if the service is provided; and (3) the probable value of the additional service and the risk of error in the proceeding if such assistance is not offered. 27 Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086, 1112 (10th Cir. 1998) (quotation omitted). The third factor is the critical factor, Johnson v. Gibson, 169 F.3d 1239, 1246-47 (10th Cir. 1999), and it is dispositive in this case. 28 Rojem's requests for experts and an investigator were speculative, merely suggesting, without more, that such assistance would have been beneficial. Rogers v. Gibson, 173 F.3d 1278, 1287 (10th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1120 (2000). He has not shown the value of the requested services or how their denial caused him substantial prejudice. See Johnson, 169 F.3d at 1247. And counsel was not rendered ineffective. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) (requiring petitioner to show counsel's performance was deficient and he was prejudiced thereby). Accordingly, we conclude the Oklahoma appellate court's determinations were not unreasonable. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1). 29 In federal district court, Rojem was entitled to experts and an investigator only upon a showing of reasonable necessity. See 21 U.S.C. 848 (q)(4)(B), (q)(9); McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 855 (1994). Because Rojem did not show necessity, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying funding for an investigator or experts. See, e.g., Hill v. Johnson, 210 F.3d 481, 487 (5th Cir. 2000), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Aug. 28, 2000) (No. 00-5947); Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 837 (9th Cir. 1995).