## Facts

- Lisa J. Dunn, an indigent Kansas state prisoner, was convicted as an aider and abettor of multiple violent felonies arising from a multi-state crime spree committed primarily by Daniel Remeta.
- Dunn was 18 when she met Remeta, took a .357 Magnum from her father’s collection at Remeta’s request, and traveled with him.
- Dunn testified that Remeta controlled her through threats, physical abuse, and intimidation, including threats to harm her or her family if she tried to leave.
- Dunn did not personally shoot or physically assault victims; the prosecution’s theory focused on her alleged participation and intent as an aider and abettor.
- Dunn’s defense theory was that prolonged abuse and coercion impaired her ability to form the specific intent required for aiding-and-abetting liability, relying on psychological concepts described by counsel as battered-woman-type dynamics and dissociative responses.
- Trial counsel moved for state funds to retain a psychiatric/psychological expert, stating he could not competently develop or present the mental-state defense without expert assistance.
- The state trial court denied the request for expert funding; Dunn proceeded to trial without an expert and was convicted.
- After state appellate affirmance, Dunn sought federal habeas relief; the federal district court granted relief and ordered a new trial based on the denial of expert assistance, and the State appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether due process required the State to provide an indigent defendant with state-funded psychiatric/psychological expert assistance when mental condition was a significant factor bearing on specific intent for aiding-and-abetting liability.
2. Whether the state trial court’s denial of funds for an expert violated the principles of *Ake v. Oklahoma*.
3. Whether any constitutional error in denying expert assistance was harmless on federal habeas review.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the grant of federal habeas relief ordering a new trial.
- The court held that *Ake* was not limited to insanity or competency and could apply where psychiatric evidence was critical to another important trial issue, including specific intent.
- Dunn made a sufficient showing that her mental condition was a significant factor and that expert assistance was necessary to present an effective defense.
- The denial of expert funding was not harmless because it went to the core disputed question: whether Dunn had the specific intent to aid and abet Remeta’s crimes.
- Because the *Ake* issue was dispositive, the court did not reach other issues raised in the cross-appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Due process requires providing an indigent defendant access to psychiatric/psychological expert assistance when the defendant’s mental condition is a significant factor at trial and expert help is necessary for an adequate defense.
- *Ake v. Oklahoma* is not confined to sanity or competency; it may apply whenever specialized mental-health evidence is central to a material element such as specific intent.
- A request for expert assistance is supported where counsel demonstrates that the defense cannot be effectively developed and presented through ordinary advocacy because the subject matter is outside common lay understanding.
- On habeas review, denial of constitutionally required expert assistance is not harmless when it undermines confidence in the verdict by impairing the presentation of a core defense theory.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit held that due process entitled Dunn to state-funded psychiatric/psychological expert assistance under *Ake* because her mental condition was central to contesting specific intent for aiding-and-abetting liability, and the state court’s denial of funding was prejudicial; habeas relief and a new trial were therefore required.


Dunn v. Roberts, 963 F.2d 308 (10th Cir. 1992)