470 U.S. 68 (1985)
Late in 1979, Glen Burton Ake was arrested and charged with murdering a couple and wounding their two children.1 He was arraigned in the District Court for Canadian County, Oklahoma, in February 1980.2 His behavior at arraignment and in other prearraignment incidents at the jail was so bizarre that the trial judge, sua sponte, ordered him to be examined by a psychiatrist for the purpose of advising with the Court as to his impressions of whether the Defendant may need an extended period of mental observation.3
The examining psychiatrist reported that at times Ake appeared to be frankly delusional and claimed to be the sword of vengeance of the Lord.4 He diagnosed Ake as a probable paranoid schizophrenic and recommended a prolonged psychiatric evaluation to determine whether Ake was competent to stand trial.5 In March 1980, Ake was committed to a state hospital to be examined with respect to his present sanity.6 On April 10, the chief forensic psychiatrist informed the court that Ake was not competent to stand trial.7 The court held a competency hearing at which a psychiatrist testified that Ake was a psychotic with a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia chronic with exacerbation, that he was dangerous, and that he required a maximum security facility.8 The court found Ake to be a mentally ill person in need of care and treatment and incompetent to stand trial, and ordered him committed to the state mental hospital.9
Six weeks later, the chief forensic psychiatrist informed the court that Ake had become competent to stand trial while receiving 200 milligrams of Thorazine three times daily.10 At a pretrial conference in June, Ake's attorney informed the court that his client would raise an insanity defense.11 Counsel requested that a psychiatrist examine Ake with respect to his mental condition at the time of the offense or that the court provide funds for such an examination.12 The trial judge denied the motion.13 Ake was tried for two counts of murder in the first degree and two counts of shooting with intent to kill.14 At the guilt phase, defense counsel called the psychiatrists who had examined Ake at the state hospital, but none testified about his mental state at the time of the offense.15 The jury rejected the insanity defense and returned a verdict of guilty on all counts.16
At the sentencing proceeding, the prosecutor relied on the testimony of the state psychiatrists that Ake was dangerous to society.17 Ake had no expert witness to rebut this testimony or to introduce evidence in mitigation.18 The jury sentenced Ake to death on each of the two murder counts and to 500 years' imprisonment on each of the two counts of shooting with intent to kill.19 On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences.20 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.21
Whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' ruling that Ake waived his request for psychiatric assistance rests on an adequate and independent state ground precluding Supreme Court review?22
When resolution of the state procedural law question depends on a federal constitutional ruling, the state-law prong of the court's holding is not independent of federal law. Our jurisdiction is not precluded.23
No. The Oklahoma waiver rule does not apply to fundamental trial error.24 Under Oklahoma law, federal constitutional errors are fundamental.25 The state court's application of the waiver doctrine depended on an antecedent ruling on federal law, that is, on the determination of whether federal constitutional error has been committed.26 Before applying the waiver doctrine to a constitutional question, the state court must rule, either explicitly or implicitly, on the merits of the constitutional question.
Thus, the state-law prong is not independent of federal law.27
The Supreme Court's jurisdiction is properly exercised over the merits of Ake's claim.28
Whether the Constitution requires that an indigent defendant have access to the psychiatric examination and assistance necessary to prepare an effective defense based on his mental condition, when his sanity at the time of the offense is seriously in question?29
When a defendant has made a preliminary showing that his sanity at the time of the offense is likely to be a significant factor at trial. The Constitution requires that a State provide access to a psychiatrist's assistance on this issue if the defendant cannot otherwise afford one.30
Yes. Ake's sole defense was insanity.31 His behavior at arraignment was so bizarre that the trial judge ordered a psychiatric examination sua sponte.32 A state psychiatrist found Ake incompetent to stand trial less than six months after the offense.33
The psychiatrists who examined Ake for competency described the severity of his mental illness.34 When found competent six weeks later, it was only on the condition that he receive large doses of Thorazine three times daily during trial.35 Oklahoma recognizes an insanity defense under which the initial burden of producing evidence falls on the defendant.36 These facts establish that Ake's sanity at the time of the offense was likely to be a significant factor at trial, triggering the constitutional requirement of access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense.37
The Constitution requires that the State provide Ake access to psychiatric assistance at the guilt phase.38
Related opinions on this issue
This is a capital case in which the Court is asked to decide whether a State may refuse an indigent defendant any opportunity whatsoever to obtain psychiatric evidence for the preparation and presentation of a claim of insanity by way of defense when the defendant's legal sanity at the time of the offense was seriously in issue.39 The facts of the case and the question presented confine the actual holding of the Court.40 In capital cases the finality of the sentence imposed warrants protections that may or may not be required in other cases.41
Nothing in the Court's opinion reaches noncapital cases.42
I do not think that the facts of this case warrant the establishment of such a principle.43 The evidence of the brutal murders perpetrated on the victims, and of the month-long crime spree following the murders, would not seem to raise any question of sanity.44 The defendant's 44-page confession, given more than a month after the crimes, does not suggest insanity.45
Even the experts were unwilling to draw the inference that mental illness six months after the offense created a reasonable doubt as to sanity at the time of the offense.46 The rule should be limited to capital cases, and the entitlement should be only to an independent psychiatric evaluation, not to a defense consultant.47
Whether due process requires that an indigent defendant receive psychiatric assistance at the sentencing phase of a capital trial when the state presents psychiatric evidence of the defendant's future dangerousness?48
When the State presents psychiatric evidence of the defendant's future dangerousness at the sentencing phase of a capital trial, due process requires that the defendant have access to a psychiatric examination on relevant issues, to the testimony of the psychiatrist, and to assistance in preparation at the sentencing phase.49
Yes. At the sentencing proceeding, the prosecutor relied significantly on the testimony of the state psychiatrists who had examined Ake and who had testified at the guilt phase that Ake was dangerous to society.50 This testimony raised the issue of Ake's future dangerousness, which is an aggravating factor under Oklahoma's capital sentencing scheme.51 Ake had no expert witness to rebut this testimony or to introduce evidence in mitigation of his punishment.52
The consequence of error is so great, the relevance of responsive psychiatric testimony so evident, and the burden on the State so slim that due process requires access to psychiatric assistance at the sentencing phase.53
Due process requires that Ake receive psychiatric assistance at the sentencing phase.54
Related opinions on this issue
Given the Court's holding that Ake is entitled to a new trial with respect to guilt, there was no need to reach issues raised by the sentencing proceedings, so the discussion of this issue may be treated as dicta.55 The psychiatric testimony concerning future dangerousness was obtained from the psychiatrists when they were called as defense witnesses, not prosecution witnesses.56 Since the State did not initiate this line of testimony, there is no reason why it should be required to produce still more psychiatric witnesses for the benefit of the defendant.57
Even if some right to a state-appointed psychiatrist should be recognized, the defendant should be entitled only to one competent opinion from a psychiatrist who acts independently of the prosecutor's office, not to assistance in preparation and presentation of the defense.58