Several Federal courts have noted this circumstance by holding that the state has a constitutional duty to provide an impartial psychiatric expert. These courts have reasoned that the due process clause does not allow the state to condition the defendant's ability to present the insanity or diminished capacity defenses on the defendant's income. Most circuit courts, however, have denied such a right to the indigent defendant, but these courts have implicitly recognized the state's duty to give the indigent some source of psychiatric evidence. The U.S. Supreme Court should resolve this apparent split in the circuit courts by holding that the indigent defendant has a due process right to an impartial psychiatric expert. The Court should also hold that the state does not fulfill its constitutional duty unless it provides defendants meaningful access to psychiatrists or clinical psychologists. State legislatures could, as several States have already done, give indigent defendants funds to hire partisan experts. States could also require both the prosecution and the defendant to rely on the testimony of impartial experts in insanity and diminished capacity defenses. 166 footnotes. (Author summary modified)