The Karu White v KY (2010) case case presents an interesting and important issue that is often seen in Atkins cases. An Ake issue concerns the state's obligation to provide expert assistance to an indigent defendant.
The trial court refused to provide White with funding for his own private expert (to determine his MR/ID status as per Atkins) and ruled that White could be assessed by a department of corrections psychologist. White sued the trial judge in the KY Supreme Court in a writ of prohibition action, asking the Supreme Court to "prohibit" the trial judge from enforcing his order. The KY Supreme Court said no, apparently concluding that White had not shown that a private expert is reasonably necessary for a full presentation of White's case.
But Ake involved an insanity defense situation, pre-conviction, as did one of the Kentucky cases cited by the court in White. It appears that some judges seem to think there is a lesser right involved if involved if the matter comes after the defendant has already been convicted.
Technorati Tags: psychology, forensic psychology, forensic psychiatry, neuropsychology, intelligence, school psychology, psychometrics, educational psychology, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores, adaptive behavior, adaptive functioning, intellectual disability, mental retardation, MR, ID, criminal psychology, criminal defense, criminal justice, ABA, Atkins cases, Atkins death penalty, American Bar Association, Atkins cases, death penalty, capital punishment, AAIDD, Atkins MR/ID listserv, ICDP blog, psychiatry, psychiatry and criminal justice, indigent defense, Ake issue, White v KY
