NCJ Number
145227
Journal
American Criminal Law Review Volume: 30 Issue: 4 Dated: (Summer 1993) Pages: 1329-1372
Date Published
1993
Length
44 pages
Annotation
In its 1985 decision, Ake v. Oklahoma, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that indigent defendants have a constitutional right to a court-appointed psychiatric expert during their trials.
Abstract
Following an historical overview of the role of psychiatry in the criminal justice system, focusing on statutory provisions for expert assistance before the Ake decision, this article examines in depth the Ake ruling, emphasizing the ambiguities in the text and the questions it left unanswered. The primary conflicting interpretations of the Ake decision revolve around its applicability to trials other than capital proceedings, the standard by which a court can determine whether the defendant has made an adequate "threshold showing" for the need of psychiatric assistance, what constitutes competent psychiatric assistance, and the appropriate role of the appointed psychiatrist at the trial. The author maintains that, as a result of the Court's failure to articulate the circumstances in which due process requires psychiatric assistance, many courts refuse defendants' requests for such assistance. Suggestions for the clarification of the Ake ruling relate to the State's interest in limiting expert assistance, the defendant's need for assistance, and the risk of erroneous outcomes if assistance is denied. 249 notes