Court Opinion

ID: 9773673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:53:27.186879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:54.473495
License: Public Domain

WELLIVER, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
I join Judge Seiler’s dissenting opinion, but I write separately to emphasize my belief that the principal opinion places defense counsel in an untenable position that, in the vast majority of cases, will cause *67them to render ineffective assistance of counsel.
An attorney is not a psychiatrist. In order effectively to represent a criminal defendant to whom the insanity defense potentially is available, therefore, the attorney requires the assistance of an expert during three critical phases of the representation. First, an expert is necessary if the attorney is to determine whether the insanity defense indeed is appropriate. Second, if the defense is appropriate, the attorney needs expert assistance for adequate pretrial preparation. Finally, the attorney may need the expert available in the courtroom in order both to present the defense adequately and to cross-examine the prosecution’s expert witnesses effectively.
The Supreme Court has held that the sixth amendment guarantee of the right to counsel, see Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963), contemplates effective counsel and that a state’s denial of effective assistance of counsel violates due process. Hawk v. Olson, 326 U.S. 271, 66 S.Ct. 116, 90 L.Ed. 61 (1945). See Reece v. Georgia, 350 U.S. 85, 76 S.Ct. 167, 100 L.Ed. 77 (1955); Rowell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932). As a result, other courts have recognized that attorneys often require the assistance of experts in order to represent their clients adequately and have gone so far as to hold that an indigent defendant’s due process right to effective counsel encompasses his right to the appointment of an expert to assist in the preparation of his defense. See, e.g., Williams v. Martin, 618 F.2d 1021 (4th Cir.1980); United States v. Hartfield, 513 F.2d 254 (9th Cir.1975); Hintz v. Beto, 379 F.2d 937 (5th Cir.1967); United States ex rel. Robinson v. Pate, 345 F.2d 691 (7th Cir.1965), aff’d in part and remanded on other grounds, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966); Bush v. McCollum, 231 F.Supp. 560 (N.D.Tex.1964), aff’d, 344 F.2d 672 (5th Cir.1965). See also United States v. Stifel, 433 F.2d 431 (6th Cir.1970) (dictum), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 994, 91 S.Ct. 1232, 28 L.Ed.2d 531 (1971); Lee v. Habib, 424 F.2d 891 (D.C.Cir.1970) (dictum); Greer v. Beto, 379 F.2d 923 (5th Cir.1967) (dictum). This Court has recognized that a defendant has the right “to an examination by a specialist at the expense of the State” if it is “essential to due process of law.” State v. Chapman, 365 S.W.2d 551, 552 (Mo.1963).
We do not deal here with a total prohibition of expert assistance. The principal opinion’s narrow definition of the attorney-client privilege, however, produces just as great an evil. A defense attorney who thinks the insanity defense may be appropriate now faces the unenviable dilemma whether to utilize the defense without expert assistance and inevitably render ineffective assistance or to seek expert assistance knowing that by doing so he may supply ammunition - for the prosecution. Only if the psychiatric examination produces the result that the attorney seeks can the attorney’s representation be effective. The principal opinion’s retrenchment from established due process doctrine is, in my view, ill-considered and unwarranted.