Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1985

Ake v. Oklahoma

470 U.S. 68 | 105 S. Ct. 1087 | 84 L. Ed. 2d 53 | 1985 U.S. LEXIS 52 | 53 U.S.L.W. 4179

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, Ake holds that due process requires meaningful psychiatric assistance for an indigent defendant when mental condition is likely to be a significant issue at trial or, in a capital case, when psychiatric evidence of future dangerousness is used at sentencing.

Background

Glen Burton Ake, an indigent defendant, was charged with murdering a couple and shooting their two children. His behavior before and at arraignment was so bizarre that the trial judge ordered a psychiatric examination. State psychiatrists diagnosed Ake with paranoid schizophrenia, found him incompetent to stand trial, and committed him to a state hospital. Six weeks later, the hospital reported that he was competent if he continued taking large doses of Thorazine.

Ake's lawyer notified the court that Ake would raise an insanity defense and requested state-funded psychiatric assistance to examine Ake's sanity at the time of the offenses. The state-hospital examinations had addressed only Ake's present competency, not his mental state at the time of the crimes. The trial court denied the request. At trial, Ake's sole defense was insanity, but no expert testified about his sanity when the crimes occurred. The jury convicted him.

At the capital sentencing phase, the prosecution relied on testimony from state psychiatrists that Ake was dangerous to society. Ake had no psychiatric expert to rebut that evidence or develop mitigating psychiatric evidence. The jury imposed death sentences for the murders. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding that Oklahoma had no duty to provide such services to indigent capital defendants; it also stated that Ake had waived the claim by not renewing it in a new-trial motion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Oklahoma court's waiver ruling rested on an adequate and independent state ground that barred Supreme Court review.

Holding

No. The asserted state procedural ground was not independent of federal law, so the Court had jurisdiction to decide Ake's constitutional claim.

Reasoning

Oklahoma's waiver rule did not apply to fundamental trial error, and Oklahoma treated federal constitutional errors as fundamental. Thus, before deciding whether Ake had waived his claim, the state court had to decide whether a federal constitutional violation occurred.

Because the state procedural ruling depended on the state court's antecedent federal-law ruling, the procedural ground was interwoven with the merits rather than independent of them. Supreme Court review therefore would not be advisory.

Issue #2

Whether due process requires a State to provide an indigent defendant psychiatric assistance when sanity at the time of the offense is likely to be a significant factor at trial.

Holding

Yes. When an indigent defendant makes a preliminary showing that sanity at the time of the offense will likely be a significant trial issue, due process requires the State to provide access to a competent psychiatrist to examine, evaluate, prepare, and present the defense.

Reasoning

The Due Process Clause requires a State that prosecutes an indigent defendant to provide a fair opportunity to present a defense. The Court's indigent-defense cases establish that fundamental fairness sometimes requires the State to furnish the basic tools needed for meaningful participation in an adversary proceeding, though not every service a wealthier defendant might purchase.

Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing framework, the Court found the defendant's interest in accurate adjudication of a proceeding threatening life or liberty exceptionally strong. The State also has an interest in accurate criminal judgments, and its only substantial opposing interest was the fiscal cost of providing assistance.

Psychiatric help has substantial value when mental condition is genuinely disputed. A psychiatrist can examine the defendant, gather and interpret mental-health evidence, assess whether an insanity defense is viable, explain complex psychiatric issues to a jury, assist counsel in challenging opposing experts, and testify for the defense. Without that assistance, the risk of an erroneous resolution of sanity is extremely high.

The right is triggered by an ex parte threshold showing that sanity is likely to be a significant factor, not by a bare assertion of an insanity defense. Nor does the Constitution give an indigent defendant the psychiatrist of his personal choice or necessarily funds to hire a private expert; States retain discretion over how to provide meaningful access to competent psychiatric assistance.

Ake made the required showing. Insanity was his sole defense; his bizarre behavior prompted a court-ordered examination; he had recently been found incompetent and severely mentally ill; and he was deemed competent only while taking heavy doses of Thorazine. Oklahoma also placed on him the initial burden to produce evidence raising a reasonable doubt about sanity, making psychiatric assistance especially important.

The trial court's reliance on United States ex rel. Smith v. Baldi was misplaced. In Smith, neutral psychiatrists had examined the defendant's sanity and testified at trial, so the case did not establish that no psychiatric assistance is constitutionally required. Later developments in indigent-defense doctrine and the expanded role of psychiatry in criminal adjudication also undermined Oklahoma's broad reading of Smith.

Issue #3

Whether due process requires psychiatric assistance at a capital sentencing proceeding when the State presents psychiatric evidence of the defendant's future dangerousness.

Holding

Yes. In a capital sentencing proceeding, due process requires access to psychiatric examination, assistance, and testimony on relevant issues when the State relies on psychiatric evidence of future dangerousness.

Reasoning

The defendant's interest in a reliable capital sentencing decision is compelling, and the State shares a profound interest in ensuring that death is not imposed erroneously. Financial considerations carry no greater weight at sentencing than they do at the guilt phase.

Psychiatric predictions of future dangerousness can be influential but are disputed and imperfect. Meaningful testing of the State's psychiatric proof requires a qualified expert who can offer a responsive opinion, expose weaknesses in the State's analysis, and help counsel prepare the case.

Here, a state psychiatrist testified that Ake's mental illness made him dangerous, and the prosecutor relied on that testimony to establish Oklahoma's aggravating factor of future dangerousness. Denying Ake psychiatric assistance left him unable to rebut that aggravating evidence or present psychiatric mitigation, depriving him of due process.

Concurrences

Chief Justice Burger

Reasoning

Chief Justice Burger agreed that the judgment should be reversed, but emphasized the narrowness of the decision. In his view, the case involved a capital defendant who was denied any opportunity to obtain psychiatric evidence despite legal sanity being seriously in issue.

He stressed that the finality of a death sentence may justify protections not necessarily required in noncapital prosecutions. He therefore read the Court's holding as not resolving what due process requires in noncapital cases.

Dissents

Justice Rehnquist

Reasoning

Justice Rehnquist would have affirmed because, in his view, Ake had not made a sufficient factual showing that his sanity at the time of the offenses was genuinely in dispute. A diagnosis of mental illness roughly six months later did not establish a reasonable doubt about whether Ake knew right from wrong during the crimes, especially because the examining psychiatrists would not offer that conclusion.

He faulted the majority for not explaining how Ake met its own threshold requirement. Under Oklahoma law, Ake bore the initial burden of producing evidence that raised a reasonable doubt as to sanity, and the State had introduced no evidence on the issue. Rehnquist concluded that Ake simply failed to meet that state-law burden rather than suffered a federal due-process violation.

Rehnquist also argued that due process does not generally require a State to finance an indigent defendant's preferred development of a state-created insanity defense. At most, he would recognize a right in capital cases where the State bears the burden on sanity or future dangerousness and makes significant use of psychiatric evidence.

He regarded the majority's sentencing discussion as unnecessary once it ordered a new guilt-phase trial. Moreover, he noted that the future-dangerousness testimony came from psychiatrists called by Ake, rather than from prosecution experts, so he saw no basis for requiring the State to provide further psychiatric assistance.

Even if some entitlement existed, Rehnquist would limit it to an independent psychiatric evaluation. He rejected a constitutional right to a defense-oriented psychiatric consultant who would assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation, reasoning that the relevant need was for an independent competent opinion, not an expert advocate.