Opinion ID: 2159715
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Ineffective Assistance of Experts

Text: Defendant seeks reversal of his death sentence on the ground that he was deprived of his right under federal and State law to receive effective assistance of experts at the sentencing phase of his trial. We conclude that defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of experts is not separately cognizable in the context of this petition. Stated differently, defendant's claim is subsumed under the auspices of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. In Ake v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court declared that meaningful access to justice, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, requires that the government provide an indigent defendant with the basic tools of an adequate defense or appeal. 470 U.S. 68, 77, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 1093, 84 L.Ed. 2d 53, 62 (1985) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court determined that when a defendant demonstrates that sanity will be a significant factor at trial, the government must assure that the defendant has access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defendant's case. Id. at 83, 105 S.Ct. at 1096, 84 L.Ed. 2d at 66. The Court was careful to note, however, that an indigent defendant did not have a right to choose a specific psychiatrist or to receive funds to hire his or her own expert. Ibid. Numerous courts have cited Ake for the proposition that due process requires appointment of an expert when an indigent defendant establishes a substantial need for such an appointment, without which the fairness of his or her trial will be called into question. See, e.g., Terry v. Rees, 985 F. 2d 283, 284-85 (6th Cir.1993) (involving pathologist on cause of death); Little v. Armontrout, 835 F. 2d 1240, 1243-45 (8th Cir.1987) (involving expert on hypnosis); State v. Coker, 412 N.W. 2d 589, 592-93 (Iowa 1987) (involving expert on intoxication defense); Harrison v. State, 635 So. 2d 894, 900-02 (Miss.1994) (involving forensic pathologist). Prior to Ake, New Jersey courts had found the assistance of experts to be guaranteed by the right to effective assistance of counsel under Article I, paragraph 10 of the New Jersey Constitution. See State v. Green, 55 N.J. 13, 18, 258 A. 2d 889 (1969) (analyzing right to appointment of expert within framework of right to counsel). Additionally, this Court determined that a specific provision of the Public Defender Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:158A-5, grants indigent defendants in New Jersey the statutory right to the assistance of experts necessary to their defense. In re Cannady, 126 N.J. 486, 492, 600 A. 2d 459 (1991); see also In re Kauffman, 126 N.J. 499, 501, 600 A. 2d 465 (1991) (finding that the Public Defender Act mandates that the [Office of the Public Defender] pay for expert services that are necessary to any indigent defendant's case). We find no reason to depart from our precedent in Green and similar cases that have analyzed the right to effective assistance of experts as part of a defendant's right to the effective assistance of counsel. We read Ake as merely confirming the guarantees regarding expert services already provided to defendants through our State Constitution and the Public Defender Act. To conclude otherwise would require New Jersey courts to sort out difficult distinctions between expert opinions. As federal courts have noted, a difference in opinion among experts is not unusual, Harris v. Vasquez, 949 F. 2d 1497, 1522 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 910, 112 S.Ct. 1275, 117 L.Ed. 2d 501 (1992), and to allow defendants to litigate such disagreements would place courts in a never-ending battle of [experts] appointed ... for the sole purpose of discrediting a prior [expert's] diagnoses. Silagy v. Peters, 905 F. 2d 986, 1013 (7th Cir.1990). We are mindful that a psychiatric or other expert may provide substandard services. However, the deficient performance that implicates a defendant's right in that respect is the performance of counsel who obtained the expert's examinations or presented the evidence at trial. Consistent with Ake and its progeny, New Jersey courts should continue to evaluate the competence of experts within the framework of a defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, in view of our rejection of defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims, we also reject defendant's ineffective assistance of experts claim. F.