Prior to 1985 courts held that only the provision of defense counsel was constitutionally guaranteed to indigent defendants. However, the 1985 decision in Ake v. Oklahoma stated that indigents must be assured the 'adequate tools' of their defense. Since the Ake decision, Oklahoma has authorized only pyschiatrists needed to examine the defendant's sanity at the time of the offense. The applicability of the Ake decision to requests for other experts has not yet been resolved by either Oklahoma law or the Supreme Court. However, when the facts require a level of analysis that is beyond the general understanding of jurors, a court's refusal of defense experts is an endorsement of judicial inaccuracy. Defendants who have convinced the court that a requested expert is necessary should have access to that service. The burden of demonstrating this necessity is initially on the defendant. Courts should also grant the indigent assistance during the pretrial stage, upon an initial showing of need, to determine whether an expert will be necessary to adequately prepare the defense. 133 footnotes.