## Facts

- Glen Burton Ake, an indigent defendant, was charged in Oklahoma with two counts of first-degree murder and related offenses arising from a 1979 attack that killed two people and wounded two children.
- At arraignment, Ake’s behavior was sufficiently abnormal that the trial judge ordered a psychiatric examination on the court’s own motion.
- A psychiatrist reported Ake was delusional and likely a paranoid schizophrenic; Ake was found incompetent to stand trial and was committed to a state hospital.
- After treatment with antipsychotic medication, the hospital found Ake competent to stand trial on the condition he continued receiving medication.
- Before trial, defense counsel stated an intent to raise an insanity defense and requested a psychiatric evaluation at state expense concerning Ake’s mental state at the time of the offenses; the trial court denied the request.
- At the guilt phase, the prosecution presented psychiatric testimony that Ake was dangerous, but there was no expert testimony addressing his sanity at the time of the offenses; the jury rejected the insanity defense and convicted Ake.
- At capital sentencing, the State relied on psychiatric testimony to support an aggravating claim of future dangerousness; Ake had no psychiatric expert to rebut the State’s evidence or present mitigation and was sentenced to death.

## Issues

1. Whether the state appellate court’s waiver ruling constituted an adequate and independent state ground barring Supreme Court review.
2. Whether due process requires a State to provide an indigent defendant access to psychiatric assistance when sanity at the time of the offense is likely to be a significant factor at trial.
3. Whether due process requires psychiatric assistance at capital sentencing when the State relies on psychiatric evidence of future dangerousness and the defendant seeks to rebut it and present mitigating evidence.

## Decision

- The Court held it had jurisdiction because the state court’s waiver ruling was tied to its federal-law merits determination and was not an independent state ground.
- The Court held that when an indigent defendant makes a preliminary showing that sanity at the time of the offense is likely to be a significant trial issue, due process requires the State to provide access to psychiatric assistance.
- The Court held that in a capital sentencing proceeding, when the State presents psychiatric evidence of future dangerousness, due process requires the defendant have psychiatric assistance to rebut that evidence and to support mitigation.
- The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded.

## Legal Principles

- Due process may require State-provided expert assistance when it is needed for a fair opportunity to present a defense and reduce the risk of erroneous conviction or punishment.
- When sanity is likely to be a significant factor, an indigent defendant must have access to a competent psychiatrist who can conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense.
- The Constitution does not require that the defendant receive an expert of personal choosing or unlimited funds; it requires meaningful access to competent psychiatric assistance after a preliminary showing of need.
- In capital sentencing, if the State uses psychiatric evidence to establish an aggravating factor such as future dangerousness, the indigent defendant is entitled to psychiatric assistance to contest it and to present mitigation.

## Conclusion

The Court held that fundamental fairness under the Fourteenth Amendment requires state-funded psychiatric assistance for an indigent defendant when mental condition is a significant issue at trial and when psychiatric evidence is used to support future dangerousness at capital sentencing, and it reversed Ake’s conviction and death sentence for denial of that assistance.


Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985)