Court Opinion

ID: 9496510
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:28:17.012774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:37.125644
License: Public Domain

COLE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur only in the result reached by the majority denying each of the asserted grounds for habeas relief, with the exception of Smith’s claim that the trial court’s refusal to provide him with a defense psychiatric expert, as opposed to a neutral psychiatric expert, violated Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985). Because I believe that the trial court failed to provide Smith with a mental health expert for the defense as required by Ake, and as interpreted by this Court in Powell v. Collins, 328 F.3d 268 (6th Cir.2003), I respectfully dissent on this issue.
I believe that there are three critical considerations in assessing Smith’s argument that he should be granted a writ of habeas corpus because the state trial court violated Ake, by failing to provide him with a psychiatrist to function as a defense expert. First, we must assess whether Smith was entitled to expert psychiatric assistance under Ake, given that he withdrew his insanity plea prior to trial. Second, if Ake guarantees Smith expert psychiatric assistance, we must consider whether his right to psychiatric assistance is satisfied by the appointment of a neutral “friend-of-the-court” psychiatrist. Third, if the neutral psychiatrist does not satisfy Ake’s command, we must determine whether the failure to provide Smith with a defense expert psychiatrist was harmless error.
I.
In Ake, the Supreme Court held that “when a defendant has made a preliminary showing that his sanity at the time of the offense is likely to be a significant factor at trial, the Constitution requires that a state provide access to a psychiatrist’s assistance on this issue, if the defendant cannot otherwise afford one.” 470 U.S. at 74, 105 S.Ct. 1087. The Court went on to state that “when a defendant demonstrates to the trial judge that his sanity at the time of the offense is to be a significant factor at trial, the State must, at a minimum, assure the defendant access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense.” Id. at 83, 105 S.Ct. 1087.
Prior to our opinion in Powell, we noted that Ake requires that a defendant be provided with psychiatric assistance during the sentencing phase if the defendant’s sanity is a significant factor at trial, or if the state presents psychiatric evidence of future dangerousness. Mason v. Mitchell, 320 F.3d 604, 615-16 (6th Cir.2003); Skaggs v. Parker, 235 F.3d 261, 272 (6th Cir.2000); United States v. Osoba, 213 F.3d 913, 917 (6th Cir.2000). We had also recognized, however, the possibility that Ake suggests that a defendant is entitled to a competent defense expert. Skaggs, 235 F.3d at 272-73.
We must first address whether Ake’s protections apply to Smith, given that he withdrew his insanity plea prior to trial. I believe that Ake still applies. A number of Circuits, including our own, have interpreted Ake to require expert assistance beyond psychiatric assistance in conjunction with an insanity plea. In Terry v. Rees, 985 *216F.2d 283 (6th Cir.1993), this Court noted that Ake stands for the proposition that criminal trials are fundamentally unfair “if a state proceeds against an indigent defendant without making certain that he has access to the raw materials integral to building a defense.” Terry, 985 F.2d at 284. Accordingly, we held that the trial court violated Ake in denying the defendant’s request for an independent pathologist in order to challenge the government’s position as to the victim’s cause of death. Id. Similarly, the Eighth Circuit has held that the rule of Ake applies when the expert in question is not a psychiatrist, finding “no principled way to distinguish between psychiatric and nonpsychiatric experts.” Little v. Armontrout, 835 F.2d 1240, 1243 (8th Cir.1987) (en banc). The Eighth Circuit has also held that Ake required the appointment of a psychiatrist when the defendant had not pleaded insanity, but where his mental retardation was his strongest argument in mitigation for sentencing purposes. Starr v. Lockhart, 23 F.3d 1280, 1288 (8th Cir.1994).
Many courts have interpreted Ake’s command — to provide expert psychiatric assistance when a defendant’s sanity is a significant factor — to mean more than strictly whether or not the defendant has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. Rather, Ake has regularly been interpreted to require expert psychiatric assistance any time the defendant’s “mental condition” is shown to be a significant factor at trial. In other words, the Supreme Court’s use of the term “sanity” in Ake was not restricted to occasions when defendants have chosen to plead insanity, but rather, encompassed all significant issues concerning a defendant’s mental condition. Indeed, in Ake itself, the Supreme Court stated that, “when the State has made the defendant’s mental condition relevant to his criminal culpability and to the punishment he might suffer, the assistance of a psychiatrist may well be crucial to the defendant’s ability to marshal his defense.” 470 U.S. at 80, 105 S.Ct. 1087 (emphasis added). Many other courts have recognized this reading of Ake as well. See Pizzuto v. Arave, 280 F.3d 949, 963 (9th Cir.2002) (noting that in Ake, the Supreme Court recognized an indigent defendant’s right to an independent expert when the state makes mental condition relevant); Walker v. Attorney Gen. of Okla., 167 F.3d 1339, 1348 (10th Cir.1999) (stating that the Ake inquiry is whether evidence is presented to the trial court suggesting that the defendant’s mental condition is likely to be a significant factor); Chaney v. Stewart, 156 F.3d 921, 925 (9th Cir.1998) (“Ake held that a state must provide indigent criminal defendants with expert psychiatric assistance if the defendant’s mental condition is a significant factor at trial.”); United States v. Roman, 121 F.3d 136, 144 (3d Cir.1997) (“In Ake, the Supreme Court held that, when a capital defendant demonstrates that his mental condition is a significant factor at his sentencing phase, he is ‘entitled to the assistance of a psychiatrist.’ ”).
Thus, it was apparent, even before our decision in Powell, that Ake’s protection extended beyond expert psychiatric assistance for insanity pleas. However, if any doubt existed prior to Powell, such confusion has now been addressed.1 As the majority notes, our decision in Powell gives no indication that the petitioner’s sanity was actually at issue during the *217trial. Rather, it appears that the petitioner only raised issues concerning his competence to stand trial and his “mental condition.” Nevertheless, we held that the failure to provide the petitioner with a psychiatric expert to aid in his defense was a violation of Ake. Powell, 328 F.3d at 283-84. Accordingly, it is clear that Smith did not remove himself from the scope of Ake’s protections by withdrawing his insanity plea. Because Smith’s mental condition was indeed a significant factor in the state court proceedings, he was entitled to expert psychiatric assistance.
II.
Because I believe that Smith’s mental condition entitled him to expert psychiatric assistance under Ake, the next question is whether Smith’s right to psychiatric assistance was satisfied by the appointment of a neutral psychiatrist. Prior to Powell, a number of our sister circuits had held that court appointment of a neutral psychiatrist does not satisfy Ake. See Starr, 23 F.3d at 1289-91; Smith v. McCormick, 914 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that the right to psychiatric assistance recognized by Ake “does not mean the right to place the report of a ‘neutral’ psychiatrist before the court; rather it means the right to use the services of a psychiatrist in whatever capacity defense counsel deems appropriate”); United States v. Sloan, 776 F.2d 926, 929 (10th Cir.1985) (“The essential benefit of having an expert in the first place is denied the defendant when the services of the doctor must be shared with the prosecution.”) In Powell, we explicitly adopted this position. 328 F.3d at 284, 2003 WL 21012621. Thus, because Smith was only provided with a court-appointed neutral expert, Powell requires that we find the state court to have violated Ake in the present case as well.
I am not persuaded by the argument that we may ignore Powell because its holding is contrary to Ake and Sixth Circuit precedent. Ake did, indeed, state that an indigent defendant does not possess a constitutional right to “choose a psychiatrist of his personal liking.” 470 U.S. at 83, 105 S.Ct. 1087. However, I do not read this passage from Ake to imply that a defendant is not entitled to a “defense expert,” as opposed to a neutral expert. This passage from Ake, I believe, is properly read to state that, of the experts available to testify as a defense expert, a defendant is not free to choose the expert “of his personal liking,” just as an indigent defendant is not entitled to the services of the defense attorney of his choice. In fact, the Ake Court itself stated that the right to psychiatric assistance must assure the defendant “access to a competent psychiatrist who will ... assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense.” Id. I do not believe that the role of a court-appointed neutral psychiatrist properly meets this criterion. While Ake does not require that a defendant have access to the psychiatrist of his choice, it does require access to a psychiatrist who will assist in the defense. A court-appointed neutral expert is not a defense expert.
Thus, I believe that the holding of Powell is not in conflict with Ake, nor is it in conflict with any of the cases in our circuit that cite Ake for the proposition that a defendant is not entitled to the assistance of the psychiatrist of his choice. Because I would find that the denial of a defense psychiatric expert violated Smith’s rights under Ake and Powell, I now turn to the question of whether this was harmless error.
III.
In Powell, we found that the trial court’s denial of an Ake expert was not harmless *218error because “Dr. Schmidtgoessling was not equipped to conduct the appropriate examination required for her to set forth all of the facts or information the jury-should have considered at mitigation.” 328 F.3d at 287. Similarly, in the present case, Dr. Schmidtgoessling acknowledged that she functioned in the case as a friend of the court, rather than as an advocate for Smith. She testified that, as a member of the defense side, in mitigation, her role would be to look for factors to try to explain Smith’s behavior and save his life. In contrast, however, as a friend of the court, her role was simply “to perform psychological or psychiatric evaluations that the attorneys would then decide how does that fit into their defense strategy. We don’t start out looking for things that are mitigating....” The majority opinion correctly notes that Dr. Schmidtgoessling’s testimony was presented at mitigation; it, however, fails to take note of the legal consequence of Dr. Schmidtgloessing’s appearance as a neutral expert, rather than a defense expert. See ante, at n. 9 From her own admission it is clear that Dr. Schmidtgloessing saw her role as a “friend of the court.” This, I contend, fails to meet the requirement established in Ake.
We found in Powell that the testimony of a defense expert may have provided facts and information to consider at mitigation that may have led to a different sentence for the defendant. Id. The facts of this case lead me to the same conclusion. Smith endured an exceedingly difficult childhood. He spent time living with abusive foster parents, was diagnosed with diffuse cerebral dysfunction, and spent time in a juvenile psychiatric facility where, among other things, he received electric shock therapy. Given this history, the lack of expert assistance to which Smith was entitled under Ake “had such a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining” the sentencing decision, Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993), that I have “grave doubt” about the harmlessness of the error, O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 437, 115 S.Ct. 992, 130 L.Ed.2d 947 (1995). The defense appropriately concluded that Smith’s best argument at mitigation would be to focus on his mental condition. However, without the aid of an expert to testify on Smith’s behalf, the defense was unable to properly put this argument before the sentencing court. Accordingly, I would grant Smith’s request for a writ of habeas corpus based on the state’s failure to provide him with a defense psychiatric expert in mitigation.

. It is noteworthy that the district court's thorough and articulate opinion in this case was issued before this Court issued its decision in Powell. Thus, the district court did not have the benefit of considering the prece-dential value of Powell when ruling on Smith's petition.