Court Opinion

ID: 9480832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:00:06.998127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:56.708500
License: Public Domain

*1171FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part, and dissenting in part:
I respectfully dissent from the portion of the court’s opinion set forth in Parts II, III and IV, although I concur in Parts V and VI.
Before turning to the merits of the claims, a few words should be said about the facts of the case.
As the majority notes, Smith, for no good reason whatever, killed two Native American men, who had befriended him and his companions. A part of the reason for these senseless killings was the theft of the victims’ vehicle. More importantly, as Smith admitted at his first sentencing hearing, he killed them because he wanted to see what it would be like to kill someone. Beyond that, he informed the court that he was a violent person, that he felt no remorse, and that he could do it again. He also informed the court that he was not under the influence of drugs or intoxicants when he committed the crimes in question.
Based upon that record, the court sentenced him to death. Then Smith had second thoughts. He decided he was not so bad after all and could be rehabilitated. That resulted in the proceedings since then which have prolonged this matter from March of 1983 to this date, a common delay under our legal system’s rather grudging approach to the disposition of death penalty cases. Our opinion today assures that it will be delayed even further. Some portions of that delay are necessary; other portions of it are not.
A. Psychiatric Assistance.
The majority asserts that Smith’s constitutional rights have been violated because he was not given an independent adversarial psychiatrist at the hearing for reconsideration of his sentence, as opposed to a mere “neutral” psychiatrist. There can be little doubt that there are times when one is entitled to a psychiatrist, even at sentencing. Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 83-85, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 1096-97, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985).
However, this is not a case where we should find that the lack of an adversarial psychiatric consultation results in overturning the sentence. It was not properly requested.1
(1) The Request for a Psychiatric Examination.
On April 11, 1983, defendant asked for a psychiatric examination to ascertain whether he suffered from a mental disease or defect of a mitigating character. At a hearing on May 3, 1983, he presented argument to support that request, and the prosecutor said he did not really oppose it. The prosecutor went on to say that he could, perhaps, get Dr. William Stratford, the consulting psychiatrist at the state prison, to perform the examination, and Smith presented no objection to that. An order then issued which appointed Dr. Stratford to examine Smith and to make a report on his findings. Quite clearly, the intent of that order was that the report would be available to the court.
The defendant objected to' certain parts of the order; he did not object to the fact that the report might be available to the court itself. The court amended its order in accordance with the objections.2
Thereafter, a second sentencing hearing took place. There, again, counsel expressed no objection to the fact that Smith did not have an independent adversarial psychiatrist. He did not ask the court to strike the report, or to refuse to consider it, or to order another report. Nor did he ask the court to recuse itself if it had already seen the report. Rather, he called the psychiatrist to the witness stand.
*1172After Smith’s new hearing, he requested a further psychiatric examination. In that request, he complained about the nature of Dr. Stratford’s examination and the nature of the prior court order. He still did not complain that he had not been given a separate psychiatrist who would report only to him. All he requested was that a new examination be used “in the place and stead” of Dr. Stratford’s. That request was denied, because, among other things, Smith had ample time before the second hearing to make that request and he did not do so. He was then sentenced to death a second time.
In short, Smith asked for the appointment of an examining psychiatrist, and it seems rather apparent that all concerned believed that Smith was asking for an evaluation that would be made available to court and counsel. Smith did not effectively object to that; all he really asked for was a second psychiatrist since he ultimately did not like the results of the first report. Nothing in our jurisprudence suggests that he is entitled to proceed in that manner.3
(2) Raising Issue Before State Courts.
As is apparent from the above, Smith did not actually raise the personal psychiatrist issue before the trial court. More than that, however, he also failed to raise that issue when he first appealed the case to the Montana Supreme Court. A review of the careful and detailed opinion of the Supreme Court of Montana reveals that. State v. Smith, 217 Mont. 461, 705 P.2d 1087 (1987). It outlines the thirteen issues that Smith raised on appeal — the claim of lack of a separate adversarial psychiatrist was not one of them. Id. 705 P.2d at 1091. There, again, Smith essentially objected to the evaluation itself, not to the fact that it was not performed by his own adversarial psychiatrist.4
Thereafter, Smith did claim that Ake v. Oklahoma entitled him to a second psychiatric opinion. However, as the Montana Supreme Court pointed out, this case was very different from Ake. State v. Smith, 217 Mont. 453, 705 P.2d 1110 (1985); see also Clisby v. Jones, 907 F.2d 1047 (11th Cir.1990). This was not a case where a hapless defendant was forced to face the unwanted presentations of psychiatrists, without a means to defend against their devastating comments. See also United States v. Sloan, 776 F.2d 926 (10th Cir.1985) (defendant repeatedly requested that the court provide him with a psychiatrist other than the doctor used by the prosecution). In this case, Smith asked for the psychiatrist and made no objection whatever to the fact that the psychiatrist’s report was not solely for his own eyes.
What Smith asks for and what the majority grants is the overturning of his sentence for failure to give him an adversarial psychiatrist, even though he never requested one.5 With the possible exception noted in Part VI of the majority opinion, this record shows no miscarriage of justice. On the contrary, Smith’s guilt is manifest and the propriety of his sentence is equally so. Cf. Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 106 S.Ct. 2661, 91 L.Ed.2d 434 (1986) (petitioner could not raise constitutional claim on ha-beas corpus petition because he failed to raise it during state habeas proceedings); see also Dugger v. Adams, 489 U.S. 401, 109 S.Ct. 1211, 103 L.Ed.2d 435, reh’g denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1770, 104 L.Ed.2d 205 (1989) (procedural default may bar petitioner from raising claim in federal habeas corpus proceedings). I cannot agree that we should overturn the sentence under these circumstances.
*1173Fundamentally, the point is that this case is not like Ake, because the defendant did not even ask for an adversarial psychiatrist. It is not simply that there has been a procedural default; it is that there is no absolute right to an adversarial psychiatrist at sentencing.6 The Montana courts recognized that when they said that this was not an Ake case at all. I agree. The majority does not. Thus, this dissent.
B. Application of the Montana Death Penalty Statute.
The majority holds that the Montana courts fail to understand their duties in a death penalty case. In effect, it is said that when they are scrutinizing what was done they fail to gather that many circumstances taken together could possibly result in sufficient mitigation to cause a decision not to impose the death penalty.
In my opinion, that conclusion can only be reached by casting a very jaundiced eye upon what the Montana courts have done here.
The trial judge quite clearly considered all of the circumstances placed before him; he simply was not impressed that Smith had established any grounds for leniency. After hearing the evidence at the second hearing and explaining that it had “searched carefully and in vain for other factors surrounding the commission of these offenses which would or might call for leniency,” the court adhered to its prior decision that Smith merited the death penalty. The majority finds it striking that the trial court’s conclusions after the second hearing were the same as its conclusions at the end of the first hearing. I do not find it striking at all. While one might be impressed by the fact that Smith now decided he was substantially affected by drugs and alcohol and now thought that he could be rehabilitated, I fail to see why the trial judge was required to ignore Smith’s prior testimony that he was not so affected and was not redeemable. Moreover, Smith’s determination to execute two unof-fending persons must have weighed somewhat heavily on the judge’s mind, and nothing in the record suggests it was error for that judge to be and remain unimpressed with the other evidence Smith submitted at his second hearing.
I will not undertake to burden, bore, or ensorcell the reader by glossing what the Montana Supreme Court actually wrote when it decided this case. Suffice it to say that I can see no error in that court’s approach; I commend the report of its unanimous decision to all interested persons. State v. Smith, 217 Mont. 461, 705 P.2d 1087 (1985).7
Therefore, unless Smith was, in fact, deprived of effective assistance of counsel, his death penalty was properly imposed and should stand. For that reason, I cannot concur in the majority’s opinion to the contrary.

. Since Smith did not properly request an adversarial psychiatrist, I do not reach the issue of whether he would have been entitled to one if he had requested one and had properly supported that request.

. The amended order instructed Dr. Stratford to assume the truth of Smith's second set of statements regarding his use of drugs and alcohol. Dr. Stratford testified that he had done so, and on that basis was able to properly discharge his professional duties as a psychiatrist.

. I do not say that Smith did not, in effect, attack the substance of Stratford's report. That issue was considered and properly decided by the Montana courts. That, also, is not the same as the demand for an adversarial psychiatrist, a demand which the majority now grants, and wrongly so.

. That court did properly dispose of Smith’s claim that use of the psychiatrist somehow vio-Iated other constitutional rights. State v. Smith, 705 P.2d at 1100-02.

. In fact, even in his habeas corpus petition to the state court, Smith did not assert that he was entitled to a separate, adversarial psychiatrist. The district court noted that Smith first raised that issue as a new argument before it.

. This is unlike the right to counsel to which one simply is entitled, without showing or request. See, e.g., Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963).

. Incidentally, I do not agree with the majority's suggestion that the Montana courts were required to make more extensive findings of fact, nor do I agree that the Supreme Court authorities cited for that proposition actually deal with or compel it. No particular form of written fact findings is imposed upon the state courts. That is a state procedural issue. It is not a federal constitutional imperative. Here the Montana courts were satisfied that they had complied with Montana law. It is not for us to say the contrary. See O’Bremski v. Maass, 905 F.2d 281, 286 (9th Cir.1990); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021, 106 S.Ct. 3336, 92 L.Ed.2d 741 (1986).