NCJ Number
151440
Journal
Criminal Law Bulletin Volume: 30 Issue: 5 Dated: (September-October 1994) Pages: 429-457
Date Published
1994
Length
29 pages
Annotation
This article sets forth a detailed analysis of Ake v. Oklahoma, which recognized the due process right of an indigent defendant to the assistance of a psychiatrist when the defendant has made a preliminary showing that his sanity will be an issue at his capital trial; reviews Medina v. California, which expressly rejected that approach; and examines the current United States Supreme Court's due process approach.
Abstract
The article looks at the ramifications of the due process approach as it pertains to the alleged right to an effective psychiatrist. The author concludes that the current approach to due process would only allow a right to effective psychiatric assistance if the holding in Ake itself is broad enough to establish the right. He considers the circuit court arguments for and against the right under Ake, and completes the inquiry, concluding that only a limited right exists. The article concludes by offering a perspective for a result that some may find counterintuitive. Footnotes