NCJ Number
103079
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 76 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1985) Pages: 1065-1085
Date Published
1985
Length
21 pages
Annotation
Following the reasoning of the decision in Griffin v. Illinois, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Ake v. Oklahoma held that when an indigent defendant demonstrates to a trial judge that his sanity at the time of the offense is likely to be a significant factor at trial, the State must provide access to a psychiatrist to assist in the defense.
Abstract
While the decision is consistent with the gradual expansion of indigents' due process rights, the decision in Ake left many questions unresolved. In leaving to the State the decision of how to implement this right, the court failed to define the State's level of fiscal responsibility and left the opinion open to the possibility of overextension. Moreover, the holding appears to provide little protection against frivolous appeals. The Court also failed to articulate the requirements necessary to satisfy the showing that the defendant must make to demonstrate that his sanity will be a significant factor at trial. Despite these shortcomings, the decision in Ake is a positive step that can only promote due process fundamental fairness. 167 notes.