ake
oklahoma
argued
november
decided
february
petitioner
indigent
charged
murder
shooting
intent
kill
arraignment
oklahoma
trial
behavior
bizarre
trial
judge
sua
sponte
ordered
examined
psychiatrist
shortly
thereafter
examining
psychiatrist
found
petitioner
incompetent
stand
trial
suggested
committed
six
weeks
later
committed
state
mental
hospital
petitioner
found
competent
condition
continue
sedated
within
antipsychotic
drug
state
resumed
proceedings
pretrial
conference
petitioner
attorney
informed
raise
insanity
defense
requested
psychiatric
evaluation
state
expense
determine
petitioner
mental
state
time
offense
claiming
entitled
evaluation
federal
constitution
basis
ex
rel
smith
baldi
trial
denied
petitioner
motion
evaluation
guilt
phase
ensuing
trial
examining
psychiatrists
testified
petitioner
dangerous
society
testimony
sanity
time
offense
jury
rejected
insanity
defense
petitioner
convicted
counts
sentencing
proceeding
state
asked
death
penalty
murder
counts
relying
examining
psychiatrists
testimony
establish
likelihood
petitioner
future
dangerous
behavior
petitioner
expert
witness
rebut
testimony
give
evidence
mitigation
punishment
sentenced
death
oklahoma
criminal
appeals
affirmed
convictions
sentences
rejecting
merits
petitioner
federal
constitutional
claim
indigent
defendant
provided
services
psychiatrist
ruled
petitioner
waived
claim
repeating
request
psychiatrist
motion
new
trial
held
jurisdiction
review
case
oklahoma
criminal
appeals
holding
federal
constitutional
claim
psychiatrist
waived
depended
ruling
consequently
present
independent
state
ground
decision
pp
defendant
made
preliminary
showing
sanity
time
offense
likely
significant
factor
trial
constitution
requires
state
provide
access
psychiatrist
assistance
issue
defendant
otherwise
afford
one
pp
determining
whether
conditions
psychiatrist
participation
important
enough
preparation
defense
require
state
provide
indigent
defendant
access
psychiatrist
three
relevant
factors
private
interest
affected
state
actions
ii
state
interest
affected
safeguard
provided
iii
probable
value
additional
substitute
safeguards
sought
risk
erroneous
deprivation
affected
interest
safeguards
provided
private
interest
accuracy
criminal
proceeding
almost
uniquely
compelling
state
interest
denying
petitioner
psychiatrist
assistance
substantial
light
compelling
interest
state
petitioner
accurate
disposition
without
psychiatrist
assistance
conduct
professional
examination
issues
relevant
insanity
defense
help
determine
whether
defense
viable
present
testimony
assist
preparing
state
psychiatric
witnesses
risk
inaccurate
resolution
sanity
issues
extremely
high
particularly
defendant
able
make
ex
parte
threshold
showing
sanity
likely
significant
factor
defense
pp
state
capital
sentencing
proceeding
presents
psychiatric
evidence
defendant
future
dangerousness
defendant
without
psychiatrist
assistance
offer
expert
opposing
view
thereby
loses
significant
opportunity
raise
jurors
minds
questions
state
proof
aggravating
factor
circumstance
consequence
error
great
relevance
responsive
psychiatric
testimony
evident
state
burden
slim
due
process
requires
access
psychiatric
examination
relevant
issues
psychiatrist
testimony
assistance
preparation
sentencing
phase
pp
ex
rel
smith
baldi
supra
authority
absolving
trial
obligation
provide
petitioner
access
psychiatrist
pp
record
petitioner
entitled
access
psychiatrist
assistance
trial
clear
mental
state
time
offense
substantial
factor
defense
trial
notice
fact
request
psychiatrist
made
addition
petitioner
future
dangerousness
significant
factor
sentencing
phase
entitle
psychiatrist
assistance
issue
denial
assistance
deprived
due
process
pp
marshall
delivered
opinion
brennan
white
blackmun
powell
stevens
joined
burger
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
post
rehnquist
filed
dissenting
opinion
post
arthur
spitzer
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
elizabeth
symonds
charles
sims
burt
neuborne
william
rogers
michael
turpen
attorney
general
oklahoma
argued
cause
respondent
brief
david
lee
assistant
attorney
general
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
new
jersey
department
public
advocate
joseph
rodriguez
michael
perlin
american
psychiatric
association
joel
klein
american
psychological
association
et
al
margaret
farrell
ewing
donald
bersoff
bruce
ennis
briefs
amici
curiae
also
supporting
petitioner
filed
public
defender
oklahoma
et
al
robert
ravitz
frank
mccarthy
thomas
ray
national
legal
aid
defender
association
et
al
richard
wilson
james
doyle
justice
marshall
delivered
opinion
issue
case
whether
constitution
requires
indigent
defendant
access
psychiatric
examination
assistance
necessary
prepare
effective
defense
based
mental
condition
sanity
time
offense
seriously
question
late
glen
burton
ake
arrested
charged
murdering
couple
wounding
two
children
arraigned
district
canadian
county
february
behavior
arraignment
prearraignment
incidents
jail
bizarre
trial
judge
sua
sponte
ordered
examined
psychiatrist
purpose
advising
impressions
whether
defendant
may
need
extended
period
mental
observation
app
examining
psychiatrist
reported
times
ake
appears
frankly
delusional
claims
sword
vengeance
lord
sit
left
hand
god
heaven
diagnosed
ake
probable
paranoid
schizophrenic
recommended
prolonged
psychiatric
evaluation
determine
whether
ake
competent
stand
trial
march
ake
committed
state
hospital
examined
respect
present
sanity
competency
stand
trial
april
less
six
months
incidents
ake
indicated
chief
forensic
psychiatrist
state
hospital
informed
ake
competent
stand
trial
held
competency
hearing
psychiatrist
testified
ake
psychotic
psychiatric
diagnosis
paranoid
schizophrenia
chronic
exacerbation
current
upset
addition
dangerous
ecause
severity
mental
illness
intensities
rage
poor
control
delusions
requires
maximum
security
facility
within
believe
state
psychiatric
hospital
system
six
weeks
later
chief
forensic
psychiatrist
informed
ake
become
competent
stand
trial
time
ake
receiving
milligrams
thorazine
antipsychotic
drug
three
times
daily
psychiatrist
indicated
ake
continued
receive
dosage
condition
remain
stable
state
resumed
proceedings
ake
pretrial
conference
june
ake
attorney
informed
client
raise
insanity
defense
enable
prepare
present
defense
adequately
attorney
stated
psychiatrist
examine
ake
respect
mental
condition
time
offense
ake
stay
state
hospital
inquiry
made
sanity
time
offense
indigent
ake
afford
pay
psychiatrist
counsel
asked
either
arrange
psychiatrist
perform
examination
provide
funds
allow
defense
arrange
one
trial
judge
rejected
counsel
argument
federal
constitution
requires
indigent
defendant
receive
assistance
psychiatrist
assistance
necessary
defense
denied
motion
psychiatric
evaluation
state
expense
basis
decision
ex
rel
smith
baldi
ake
tried
two
counts
murder
first
degree
crime
punishable
death
oklahoma
two
counts
shooting
intent
kill
guilt
phase
trial
sole
defense
insanity
although
defense
counsel
called
stand
questioned
psychiatrists
examined
ake
state
hospital
none
testified
mental
state
time
offense
none
examined
point
prosecution
turn
asked
psychiatrists
whether
performed
seen
results
examination
diagnosing
ake
mental
state
time
offense
doctor
replied
result
expert
testimony
either
side
ake
sanity
time
offense
jurors
instructed
ake
found
guilty
reason
insanity
ability
distinguish
right
wrong
time
alleged
offense
told
ake
presumed
sane
time
crime
unless
presented
evidence
sufficient
raise
reasonable
doubt
sanity
time
raised
doubt
minds
jurors
informed
burden
proof
shifted
state
prove
sanity
beyond
reasonable
doubt
jury
rejected
ake
insanity
defense
returned
verdict
guilty
counts
sentencing
proceeding
state
asked
death
penalty
new
evidence
presented
prosecutor
relied
significantly
testimony
state
psychiatrists
examined
ake
testified
guilt
phase
ake
dangerous
society
establish
likelihood
future
dangerous
behavior
ake
expert
witness
rebut
testimony
introduce
behalf
evidence
mitigation
punishment
jury
sentenced
ake
death
two
murder
counts
years
imprisonment
two
counts
shooting
intent
kill
appeal
oklahoma
criminal
appeals
ake
argued
indigent
defendant
provided
services
psychiatrist
rejected
argument
observing
held
numerous
times
unique
nature
capital
cases
notwithstanding
state
responsibility
providing
services
indigents
charged
capital
crimes
finding
error
ake
claims
affirmed
convictions
sentences
granted
certiorari
hold
defendant
made
preliminary
showing
sanity
time
offense
likely
significant
factor
trial
constitution
requires
state
provide
access
psychiatrist
assistance
issue
defendant
otherwise
afford
one
accordingly
reverse
ii
initially
must
address
jurisdiction
review
case
ruling
merits
ake
claim
oklahoma
observed
motion
new
trial
ake
repeated
request
psychiatrist
claim
thereby
waived
cited
hawkins
state
crim
app
proposition
state
argued
brief
holding
issue
therefore
rested
adequate
independent
state
ground
reviewed
despite
ruling
conclude
state
judgment
rest
independent
state
ground
jurisdiction
therefore
properly
exercised
oklahoma
waiver
rule
apply
fundamental
trial
error
see
hawkins
state
supra
gaddis
state
crim
app
oklahoma
law
state
conceded
oral
argument
federal
constitutional
errors
fundamental
tr
oral
arg
see
buchanan
state
crim
app
violation
constitutional
right
constitutes
fundamental
error
see
also
williams
state
crim
app
thus
state
made
application
procedural
bar
depend
antecedent
ruling
federal
law
determination
whether
federal
constitutional
error
committed
applying
waiver
doctrine
constitutional
question
state
must
rule
either
explicitly
implicitly
merits
constitutional
question
indicated
past
resolution
state
procedural
law
question
depends
federal
constitutional
ruling
prong
holding
independent
federal
law
jurisdiction
precluded
see
herb
pitcairn
permitted
render
advisory
opinion
judgment
rendered
state
corrected
views
federal
laws
review
amount
nothing
advisory
opinion
enterprise
irrigation
district
farmers
mutual
canal
ground
interwoven
independent
matter
sufficient
breadth
sustain
judgment
without
decision
jurisdiction
plain
case
holding
integral
state
disposition
matter
ruling
issue
respect
advisory
case
additional
holding
state
constitutional
challenge
presented
waived
depends
ruling
consequently
present
independent
state
ground
decision
rendered
therefore
turn
consideration
merits
ake
claim
iii
long
recognized
state
brings
judicial
power
bear
indigent
defendant
criminal
proceeding
must
take
steps
assure
defendant
fair
opportunity
present
defense
elementary
principle
grounded
significant
part
fourteenth
amendment
due
process
guarantee
fundamental
fairness
derives
belief
justice
equal
simply
result
poverty
defendant
denied
opportunity
participate
meaningfully
judicial
proceeding
liberty
stake
recognition
right
held
almost
years
ago
state
offers
criminal
defendants
opportunity
appeal
cases
must
provide
trial
transcript
indigent
defendant
transcript
necessary
decision
merits
appeal
griffin
illinois
since
held
indigent
defendant
may
required
pay
fee
filing
notice
appeal
conviction
burns
ohio
indigent
defendant
entitled
assistance
counsel
trial
gideon
wainwright
first
direct
appeal
right
douglas
california
assistance
must
effective
see
evitts
lucey
strickland
washington
mcmann
richardson
indeed
little
streater
extended
principle
meaningful
participation
proceeding
held
paternity
action
state
deny
putative
father
blood
grouping
tests
otherwise
afford
meaningful
access
justice
consistent
theme
cases
recognized
long
ago
mere
access
courthouse
doors
assure
proper
functioning
adversary
process
criminal
trial
fundamentally
unfair
state
proceeds
indigent
defendant
without
making
certain
access
raw
materials
integral
building
effective
defense
thus
held
state
must
purchase
indigent
defendant
assistance
wealthier
counterpart
might
buy
see
ross
moffitt
often
reaffirmed
fundamental
fairness
entitles
indigent
defendants
adequate
opportunity
present
claims
fairly
within
adversary
system
implement
principle
focused
identifying
basic
tools
adequate
defense
appeal
britt
north
carolina
required
tools
provided
defendants
afford
pay
say
basic
tools
must
provided
course
merely
begin
inquiry
case
must
decide
whether
conditions
participation
psychiatrist
important
enough
preparation
defense
require
state
provide
indigent
defendant
access
competent
psychiatric
assistance
preparing
defense
three
factors
relevant
determination
first
private
interest
affected
action
state
second
governmental
interest
affected
safeguard
provided
third
probable
value
additional
substitute
procedural
safeguards
sought
risk
erroneous
deprivation
affected
interest
safeguards
provided
see
little
streater
supra
mathews
eldridge
turn
apply
standard
issue
us
private
interest
accuracy
criminal
proceeding
places
individual
life
liberty
risk
almost
uniquely
compelling
indeed
host
safeguards
fashioned
years
diminish
risk
erroneous
conviction
stands
testament
concern
interest
individual
outcome
state
effort
overcome
presumption
innocence
obvious
weighs
heavily
analysis
consider
next
interest
state
oklahoma
asserts
provide
ake
psychiatric
assistance
record
us
result
staggering
burden
state
brief
respondent
unpersuaded
assertion
many
well
federal
government
currently
make
psychiatric
assistance
available
indigent
defendants
found
financial
burden
great
preclude
assistance
especially
obligation
state
limited
provision
one
competent
psychiatrist
many
limit
right
recognize
today
time
difficult
identify
interest
state
economy
weighs
recognition
right
state
interest
prevailing
trial
unlike
private
litigant
necessarily
tempered
interest
fair
accurate
adjudication
criminal
cases
thus
also
unlike
private
litigant
state
may
legitimately
assert
interest
maintenance
strategic
advantage
defense
result
advantage
cast
pall
accuracy
verdict
obtained
therefore
conclude
governmental
interest
denying
ake
assistance
psychiatrist
substantial
light
compelling
interest
state
individual
accurate
dispositions
last
inquire
probable
value
psychiatric
assistance
sought
risk
error
proceeding
assistance
offered
begin
considering
pivotal
role
psychiatry
come
play
criminal
proceedings
well
federal
government
decided
either
legislation
judicial
decision
indigent
defendants
entitled
certain
circumstances
assistance
psychiatrist
expertise
example
subsection
criminal
justice
act
congress
provided
indigent
defendants
shall
receive
assistance
experts
necessary
adequate
defense
numerous
state
statutes
guarantee
reimbursement
expert
services
like
standard
many
assured
access
psychiatrists
legislative
process
state
courts
interpreted
state
federal
constitution
require
psychiatric
assistance
provided
indigent
defendants
necessary
adequate
defense
insanity
issue
statutes
decisions
reflect
reality
recognize
today
namely
state
made
defendant
mental
condition
relevant
criminal
culpability
punishment
might
suffer
assistance
psychiatrist
may
well
crucial
defendant
ability
marshal
defense
role
psychiatrists
gather
facts
professional
examination
interviews
elsewhere
share
judge
jury
analyze
information
gathered
draw
plausible
conclusions
defendant
mental
condition
effects
disorder
behavior
offer
opinions
defendant
mental
condition
might
affected
behavior
time
question
know
probative
questions
ask
opposing
party
psychiatrists
interpret
answers
unlike
lay
witnesses
merely
describe
symptoms
believe
might
relevant
defendant
mental
state
psychiatrists
identify
elusive
often
deceptive
symptoms
insanity
solesbee
balkcom
tell
jury
observations
relevant
permitted
evidentiary
rules
psychiatrists
translate
medical
diagnosis
language
assist
trier
fact
therefore
offer
evidence
form
meaning
task
hand
process
investigation
interpretation
testimony
psychiatrists
ideally
assist
lay
jurors
generally
training
psychiatric
matters
make
sensible
educated
determination
mental
condition
defendant
time
offense
psychiatry
however
exact
science
psychiatrists
disagree
widely
frequently
constitutes
mental
illness
appropriate
diagnosis
attached
given
behavior
symptoms
cure
treatment
likelihood
future
dangerousness
perhaps
often
single
accurate
psychiatric
conclusion
legal
insanity
given
case
juries
remain
primary
factfinders
issue
must
resolve
differences
opinion
within
psychiatric
profession
basis
evidence
offered
party
jurors
make
determination
issues
inevitably
complex
foreign
testimony
psychiatrists
crucial
virtual
necessity
insanity
plea
chance
success
organizing
defendant
mental
history
examination
results
behavior
information
interpreting
light
expertise
laying
investigative
analytic
process
jury
psychiatrists
party
enable
jury
make
accurate
determination
truth
issue
reason
rely
psychiatrists
examiners
consultants
witnesses
private
individuals
well
afford
saying
neither
approve
disapprove
widespread
reliance
psychiatrists
instead
recognize
unfairness
contrary
holding
light
evolving
practice
foregoing
leads
inexorably
conclusion
without
assistance
psychiatrist
conduct
professional
examination
issues
relevant
defense
help
determine
whether
insanity
defense
viable
present
testimony
assist
preparing
state
psychiatric
witnesses
risk
inaccurate
resolution
sanity
issues
extremely
high
assistance
defendant
fairly
able
present
least
enough
information
jury
meaningful
manner
permit
make
sensible
determination
defendant
mental
condition
necessarily
issue
every
criminal
proceeding
however
unlikely
psychiatric
assistance
kind
described
probable
value
cases
risk
error
denial
assistance
well
probable
value
predictably
height
defendant
mental
condition
seriously
question
defendant
able
make
ex
parte
threshold
showing
trial
sanity
likely
significant
factor
defense
need
assistance
psychiatrist
readily
apparent
cases
defense
may
devastated
absence
psychiatric
examination
testimony
assistance
defendant
might
reasonable
chance
success
circumstance
potential
accuracy
jury
determination
dramatically
enhanced
interests
individual
state
accurate
proceeding
substantial
state
interest
fisc
must
yield
therefore
hold
defendant
demonstrates
trial
judge
sanity
time
offense
significant
factor
trial
state
must
minimum
assure
defendant
access
competent
psychiatrist
conduct
appropriate
examination
assist
evaluation
preparation
presentation
defense
say
course
indigent
defendant
constitutional
right
choose
psychiatrist
personal
liking
receive
funds
hire
concern
indigent
defendant
access
competent
psychiatrist
purpose
discussed
case
provision
counsel
leave
decision
implement
right
ake
also
denied
means
presenting
evidence
rebut
state
evidence
future
dangerousness
foregoing
discussion
compels
similar
conclusion
context
capital
sentencing
proceeding
state
presents
psychiatric
evidence
defendant
future
dangerousness
repeatedly
recognized
defendant
compelling
interest
fair
adjudication
sentencing
phase
capital
case
state
profound
interest
assuring
ultimate
sanction
erroneously
imposed
see
monetary
considerations
persuasive
context
trial
variable
must
focus
therefore
probable
value
assistance
psychiatrist
area
risk
attendant
absence
upheld
practice
many
placing
jury
psychiatric
testimony
question
future
dangerousness
see
barefoot
estelle
least
defendant
access
expert
holding
relied
part
assumption
factfinder
views
prosecutor
psychiatrists
opposing
views
defendant
doctors
therefore
competent
uncover
recognize
take
due
account
shortcomings
predictions
point
without
psychiatrist
assistance
defendant
offer
expert
opposing
view
thereby
loses
significant
opportunity
raise
jurors
minds
questions
state
proof
aggravating
factor
circumstance
consequence
error
great
relevance
responsive
psychiatric
testimony
evident
burden
state
slim
due
process
requires
access
psychiatric
examination
relevant
issues
testimony
psychiatrist
assistance
preparation
sentencing
phase
trial
case
believed
decision
ex
rel
smith
baldi
absolved
completely
obligation
provide
access
psychiatrist
two
reasons
disagree
first
neither
smith
mcgarty
majority
cited
smith
even
suggested
constitution
require
psychiatric
examination
assistance
whatsoever
quite
contrary
record
smith
demonstrated
neutral
psychiatrists
fact
examined
defendant
sanity
testified
subject
trial
basis
found
additional
assistance
necessary
smith
supra
see
also
ex
rel
smith
baldi
similarly
mcgarty
defendant
examined
two
psychiatrists
beholden
prosecution
therefore
reject
state
contention
smith
supports
broad
proposition
presently
constitutional
right
psychiatric
examination
defendant
sanity
time
offense
brief
opposition
supports
proposition
constitutional
right
psychiatric
assistance
defendant
smith
received
event
disagreement
state
reliance
smith
fundamental
case
decided
time
indigent
defendants
state
courts
constitutional
right
even
presence
counsel
recognition
since
elemental
constitutional
rights
enhanced
ability
indigent
defendant
attain
fair
hearing
signaled
increased
commitment
assuring
meaningful
access
judicial
process
also
neither
trial
practice
legislative
treatment
role
insanity
criminal
process
sits
paralyzed
simply
addressed
surely
remiss
ignore
extraordinarily
enhanced
role
psychiatry
criminal
law
today
shifts
areas
since
time
smith
convince
us
opinion
case
addressed
altogether
different
variables
limited
considering
whether
fundamental
fairness
today
requires
different
result
iv
turn
apply
standards
facts
case
record
us
clear
ake
mental
state
time
offense
substantial
factor
defense
trial
notice
fact
request
psychiatrist
made
one
ake
sole
defense
insanity
second
ake
behavior
arraignment
four
months
offense
bizarre
prompt
trial
judge
sua
sponte
examined
competency
third
state
psychiatrist
shortly
thereafter
found
ake
incompetent
stand
trial
suggested
committed
fourth
found
competent
six
weeks
later
condition
sedated
large
doses
thorazine
three
times
day
trial
fifth
psychiatrists
examined
ake
competency
described
trial
severity
ake
mental
illness
less
six
months
offense
question
suggested
mental
illness
might
begun
many
years
earlier
app
finally
oklahoma
recognizes
defense
insanity
initial
burden
producing
evidence
falls
defendant
taken
together
factors
make
clear
question
ake
sanity
likely
significant
factor
defense
addition
ake
future
dangerousness
significant
factor
sentencing
phase
state
psychiatrist
treated
ake
state
mental
hospital
testified
guilt
phase
mental
illness
ake
posed
threat
continuing
criminal
violence
testimony
raised
issue
ake
future
dangerousness
aggravating
factor
oklahoma
capital
sentencing
scheme
okla
tit
prosecutor
relied
sentencing
therefore
conclude
ake
also
entitled
assistance
psychiatrist
issue
denial
assistance
deprived
due
process
accordingly
reverse
remand
new
trial
ordered
capital
case
asked
decide
whether
state
may
refuse
indigent
defendant
opportunity
whatsoever
obtain
psychiatric
evidence
preparation
presentation
claim
insanity
way
defense
defendant
legal
sanity
time
offense
seriously
issue
facts
case
question
presented
confine
actual
holding
capital
cases
finality
sentence
imposed
warrants
protections
may
may
required
cases
nothing
opinion
reaches
noncapital
cases
footnotes
oklahoma
criminal
appeals
also
dismissed
ake
claim
thorazine
given
trial
rendered
unable
understand
proceedings
assist
counsel
defense
acknowledged
ake
stared
vacantly
ahead
throughout
trial
rejected
ake
challenge
reliance
state
psychiatrist
word
ake
competent
stand
trial
influence
drug
ake
petitioned
writ
certiorari
issue
well
light
disposition
issues
presented
need
address
claim
recently
discussed
role
due
process
played
cases
separate
related
inquiries
due
process
equal
protection
must
trigger
see
evitts
lucey
bearden
georgia
see
code
supp
alaska
stat
ann
rev
stat
ann
capital
cases
extended
noncapital
cases
state
peeler
app
ark
stat
ann
supp
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
capital
cases
right
recognized
cases
people
worthy
cal
app
cal
rptr
rev
stat
supp
state
clemons
del
code
tit
rule
crim
proc
haw
rev
stat
supp
state
olin
idaho
people
watson
owen
state
ind
trial
judge
may
authorize
appoint
experts
necessary
iowa
rule
crim
proc
stat
ann
supp
rev
stat
state
madison
la
state
anaya
mass
laws
ch
west
supp
comp
laws
ann
supp
stat
miss
code
ann
supp
mo
rev
stat
supp
mont
code
ann
state
suggett
neb
discretion
appoint
psychiatrist
rests
trial
rev
stat
rev
stat
ann
supp
stat
ann
county
law
mckinney
supp
stat
ohio
rev
code
ann
supp
rev
stat
commonwealth
gelormo
super
laws
supp
code
supp
codified
laws
supp
code
ann
supp
tex
code
crim
proc
art
vernon
supp
utah
code
ann
rev
code
see
also
state
cunningham
app
code
supp
wyo
stat
see
supra
ibid
gardner
myth
impartial
psychiatric
expert
comments
concerning
criminal
responsibility
decline
age
therapy
law
psychology
rev
addition
estimony
emanating
depth
scope
specialized
knowledge
impressive
jury
testimony
another
source
less
effect
bailey
rothblatt
investigation
preparation
criminal
cases
see
also
aba
standards
criminal
justice
commentary
ed
quality
representation
trial
may
excellent
yet
valueless
defendant
defense
requires
assistance
psychiatrist
services
available
see
also
reilly
barry
cardozo
pon
trial
certain
issues
insanity
forgery
experts
often
necessary
prosecution
defense
defendant
may
unfair
disadvantage
unable
poverty
parry
witnesses
thrusts
goldstein
lane
goldstein
trial
techniques
ed
modern
civilization
complexities
business
science
professions
made
expert
opinion
evidence
necessity
true
subject
matters
involved
beyond
general
knowledge
average
juror
henning
psychiatrist
legal
process
reason
insanity
essays
psychiatry
law
freedman
discussing
growing
role
psychiatric
witnesses
result
changing
definitions
legal
insanity
increased
judicial
legislative
acceptance
practice
event
state
concedes
right
exists
argues
implicated
brief
respondent
tr
oral
arg
therefore
recognizes
financial
burden
always
great
outweigh
individual
interest
see
henning
supra
gardner
supra
huckabee
lawyers
psychiatrists
criminal
law
cooperation
chaos
discussing
reasons
shift
toward
reliance
psychiatrists
huckabee
resolving
problem
dominance
psychiatrists
criminal
responsibility
decisions
proposal
see
supra
express
opinion
whether
factors
alone
combination
necessary
make
finding
conclude
due
process
clause
guaranteed
ake
assistance
requested
denied
occasion
consider
applicability
equal
protection
clause
sixth
amendment
context
justice
rehnquist
dissenting
holds
defendant
made
preliminary
showing
sanity
time
offense
likely
significant
factor
trial
constitution
requires
state
provide
access
psychiatrist
assistance
issue
defendant
otherwise
afford
one
ante
think
facts
case
warrant
establishment
principle
think
even
factual
predicate
statement
established
constitutional
rule
announced
far
broad
limit
rule
capital
cases
make
clear
entitlement
independent
psychiatric
evaluation
defense
consultant
petitioner
ake
codefendant
hatch
quit
jobs
oil
field
rig
october
borrowed
car
went
looking
location
burglarize
drove
rural
home
reverend
richard
douglass
gained
entrance
home
ruse
holding
reverend
douglass
children
brooks
leslie
gunpoint
ransacked
home
bound
gagged
mother
father
son
forced
lie
living
room
floor
ake
hatch
took
turns
attempting
rape
leslie
douglass
nearby
bedroom
failed
efforts
forced
lie
living
room
floor
members
family
ake
shot
reverend
douglass
leslie
twice
douglass
brooks
magnum
pistol
fled
douglass
died
almost
immediately
result
gunshot
wound
reverend
douglass
death
caused
combination
gunshots
received
strangulation
manner
bound
leslie
brooks
managed
untie
drive
home
nearby
doctor
ake
accomplice
apprehended
colorado
following
crime
spree
took
arkansas
louisiana
texas
western
half
ake
extradited
colorado
oklahoma
november
placed
city
jail
el
reno
oklahoma
three
days
arrest
asked
speak
sheriff
ake
gave
sheriff
detailed
statement
concerning
crimes
first
taped
reduced
written
pages
corrected
signed
ake
ake
arraigned
november
appeared
codefendant
hatch
december
hatch
attorney
requested
obtained
order
transferring
hatch
state
mental
hospital
observation
period
determine
competency
stand
trial
although
ake
present
attorney
proceeding
request
made
behalf
ake
january
ake
hatch
bound
trial
conclusion
preliminary
hearing
suggestion
insanity
time
commission
offense
made
time
february
ake
appeared
formal
arraignment
time
became
disruptive
ordered
ake
examined
william
allen
psychiatrist
private
practice
order
determine
competency
stand
trial
april
competency
hearing
held
conclusion
trial
found
ake
mentally
ill
person
need
care
treatment
transferred
state
institution
six
weeks
later
chief
psychiatrist
institution
advised
ake
competent
stand
trial
murder
trial
began
june
time
ake
attorney
withdrew
pending
motion
jury
trial
present
sanity
outside
presence
jury
state
produced
testimony
cellmate
ake
testified
ake
told
going
try
play
crazy
state
trial
produced
evidence
guilt
evidence
offered
ake
testimony
doctors
observed
treated
confinement
pursuant
previous
order
doctors
testified
ake
mental
condition
time
confinement
institution
none
express
view
mental
condition
time
offense
significantly
although
three
testified
ake
suffered
form
mental
illness
six
months
committed
murders
two
psychiatrists
specifically
stated
opinion
concerning
ake
capacity
tell
right
wrong
time
offense
third
speculate
psychosis
might
apparent
time
makes
point
fact
expert
testimony
either
side
ake
sanity
time
offense
ante
emphasis
deleted
addition
ake
called
lay
witnesses
although
apparently
existed
testified
concerning
ake
actions
might
bearing
sanity
time
offense
although
two
friends
ake
times
proximate
murders
testified
trial
behest
prosecution
defense
counsel
question
concerning
ake
actions
might
bearing
sanity
opinion
indigent
defendant
entitled
psychiatrist
defendant
must
make
preliminary
showing
sanity
time
offense
likely
significant
factor
trial
ante
nowhere
opinion
elucidate
requirement
satisfied
particular
case
oklahoma
law
burden
initially
defendant
raise
reasonable
doubt
sanity
time
offense
burden
satisfied
burden
shifts
state
prove
sanity
beyond
reasonable
doubt
ake
state
since
state
introduced
evidence
concerning
ake
sanity
time
offense
seems
clear
matter
state
law
ake
failed
carry
initial
burden
indeed
holding
oklahoma
criminal
appeals
ibid
surprising
conclusion
facts
evidence
brutal
murders
perpetrated
victims
crime
spree
following
murders
seem
raise
question
sanity
unless
one
adopt
dubious
doctrine
one
right
mind
commit
murder
defendant
confession
given
month
crimes
suggest
insanity
failure
ake
attorney
move
competency
hearing
time
codefendant
moved
one
first
instance
record
disruptive
behavior
time
formal
arraignment
trial
judge
alertly
immediately
responded
committing
ake
examination
trial
commenced
two
months
later
time
ake
attorney
withdrew
pending
motion
jury
trial
present
sanity
state
offered
testimony
cellmate
ake
said
latter
told
going
try
play
crazy
apparently
infer
fact
ake
diagnosed
mentally
ill
six
months
offense
reasonable
doubt
ability
know
right
wrong
committed
even
experts
unwilling
draw
inference
holding
state
obligated
furnish
services
psychiatric
witness
indigent
defendant
reasonably
contests
sanity
time
offense
require
considerably
greater
showing
even
think
due
process
violated
merely
indigent
lacks
sufficient
funds
pursue
defense
thoroughly
like
may
well
capital
trials
state
assumes
burden
proving
sanity
guilt
phase
future
dangerousness
sentencing
phase
makes
significant
use
psychiatric
testimony
carrying
burden
fundamental
fairness
require
indigent
defendant
access
psychiatrist
evaluate
independently
evaluation
warrants
contradict
testimony
case
highly
doubtful
due
process
requires
state
make
available
insanity
defense
criminal
defendant
event
defense
afforded
burden
proving
insanity
placed
defendant
see
patterson
new
york
essentially
happened
ake
failed
carry
burden
state
law
believe
due
process
clause
superimposes
federal
standard
determining
sanity
legitimately
placed
issue
find
violation
due
process
circumstances
respect
necessity
expert
psychiatric
testimony
issue
future
dangerousness
opposed
sanity
time
offense
even
less
support
holding
initially
note
given
holding
ake
entitled
new
trial
respect
guilt
need
reach
issues
raised
sentencing
proceedings
discussion
issue
may
treated
dicta
event
psychiatric
testimony
concerning
future
dangerousness
obtained
psychiatrists
called
defense
witnesses
prosecution
witnesses
since
state
initiate
line
testimony
see
reason
required
produce
still
psychiatric
witnesses
benefit
defendant
finally
even
agree
right
psychiatrist
recognized
grant
broad
right
access
competent
psychiatrist
conduct
appropriate
examination
assist
evaluation
preparation
presentation
defense
ante
emphasis
added
psychiatrist
attorney
whose
job
advocate
opinion
sought
question
state
oklahoma
treats
question
fact
since
unfairness
cases
arise
fact
competent
witnesses
question
hired
state
defendant
entitled
one
competent
opinion
whatever
witness
conclusion
psychiatrist
acts
independently
prosecutor
office
although
independent
psychiatrist
available
answer
defense
counsel
questions
prior
trial
testify
called
see
reason
defendant
entitled
opposing
view
defense
advocate
foregoing
reasons
affirm
judgment
criminal
appeals
oklahoma