Add to ORKGThis note analyzes the public policy implications of the Ake decision while considering the resulting impact on North Carolina. The note also evaluates the soundness of the decision with respect to the requirement of a preliminary showing. Finally, recommendations for implementing the Ake rule are discussed while examining whether access to a competent psychiatrist is in fact a standard of constitutional disadvantage for the indigent criminal defendant
Amici are scholars who teach and write about criminal law, criminal procedure, and evidence. We file...
Full-text available at SSRN. See link in this record.The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kansas v...
Psychiatrists are frequently called to give evidence in court because they are experts in the field ...
This note analyzes the public policy implications of the Ake decision while considering the resultin...
This Note attempts to define the boundaries of the indigent criminal defendant\u27s constitutional r...
demonstrate that their sanity is likely to be a significant factor at trial, the State must assure t...
Since the Supreme Court\u27s decision in Ake v. Oklahoma, it has attempted to determine and clarify ...
The Supreme Court\u27s mid-1980s decision in Ake v. Oklahoma established the defendant\u27s constitu...
Although securing the services of defense experts to examine evidence, to advise counsel, and to tes...
The recently established constitutional right to an independent psychiatric examination for a crimin...
Under Ake v. Oklahoma, indigent capital defendants are entitled to a wide array of expert assistance...
In this casenote, the author critically examines the recent decision of Smith v. Estelle, in which t...
In one of its most controversial decisions to date, United States v Comstock, the Roberts Court uphe...
The right to represent oneself at trial is well-established, but not absolute. Recently, in Indiana ...
Defendant was convicted of first degree murder after having pleaded insanity as a defense to the cha...
Amici are scholars who teach and write about criminal law, criminal procedure, and evidence. We file...
Full-text available at SSRN. See link in this record.The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kansas v...
Psychiatrists are frequently called to give evidence in court because they are experts in the field ...
This note analyzes the public policy implications of the Ake decision while considering the resultin...
This Note attempts to define the boundaries of the indigent criminal defendant\u27s constitutional r...
demonstrate that their sanity is likely to be a significant factor at trial, the State must assure t...
Since the Supreme Court\u27s decision in Ake v. Oklahoma, it has attempted to determine and clarify ...
The Supreme Court\u27s mid-1980s decision in Ake v. Oklahoma established the defendant\u27s constitu...
Although securing the services of defense experts to examine evidence, to advise counsel, and to tes...
The recently established constitutional right to an independent psychiatric examination for a crimin...
Under Ake v. Oklahoma, indigent capital defendants are entitled to a wide array of expert assistance...
In this casenote, the author critically examines the recent decision of Smith v. Estelle, in which t...
In one of its most controversial decisions to date, United States v Comstock, the Roberts Court uphe...
The right to represent oneself at trial is well-established, but not absolute. Recently, in Indiana ...
Defendant was convicted of first degree murder after having pleaded insanity as a defense to the cha...
Amici are scholars who teach and write about criminal law, criminal procedure, and evidence. We file...
Full-text available at SSRN. See link in this record.The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kansas v...
Psychiatrists are frequently called to give evidence in court because they are experts in the field ...