McWilliams v. Dunn (16-5294)

argument 16-5294

McWilliams v. Dunn

Supreme Court of the United States 56 min 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the Supreme Court’s initial framing of the Ake‑v‑Oklahoma precedent in this case?

John G. Roberts 0:00

You'll hear argument first this morning in case sixteen fifty two ninety four, McWilliams versus Dunn.

Unknown 0:06

Mr. Bright. Thank you. Mr Chief Justice and May it please the court. This court in nineteen eighty five clearly established in its decision in Ake versus Oklahoma that a poor defendant whose mental health or mental issues uh were a significant factor in the case is entitled to an expert And an expert independent of the prosecution to assist in the evaluation, the preparation, and the presentation of an effective defense for uh the uh defendant. Suppose we thought that uh and it is not your position, I understand it that Ake was ambiguous on this point. Uh And then over time it became clear that really the psychiatrist ought to be consulting with the defense uh and and not with the prosecution. Would we say that the basic right was clearly established and that over time we are simply making a refinement

Unknown 1:03

Or If we think Ake is ambiguous, I know he's Disagree. If we think AK is ambiguous, Uh we are establishing a new right uh when we say it must be a defence psychiatrist. Well, as your Honor guest, uh we don't think it's ambiguous. Uh in fact we think it's quite clear when you look sorry. Go ahead, but I'm I'm I'm I'm assuming that we find it ambiguous. I am asking then is the is Uh C can it be the position that this is just a refinement of the right or is it a new right? Well, if you accept that it was ambiguous, which of course we do not accept, but of course, I mean this goes to some of the clearly established cases the Court has looked at where it's does it extend uh a decision that the the court has has rendered, uh and and is this asking for something more?

Unknown 1:58

We would submit here it c this can't be anything but an independent uh expert. Because it even goes to So Mr Bright w if if if it's we're informed correctly by the respondents. that on remanding o eight itself. The lower courts held that due process is satisfied by the assistance of a neutral psychiatrist. So If it was All that clearly established was not understood by In the very case That was argued here and then I'll reman according to the respondent at least. The lower courts held a neutral psychiatrist is good enough. Well but whether or not the Oklahoma Court got it right or wrong when the case was remanded. What what clearly established we believe starts and ends with this court, whether something is clearly established.

Unknown 2:59

And when the court says where it's a significant factor You have a right to an expert and then goes through the things that that expert uh is going to do. uh to gather facts for the defence, to analyze facts for the defence, to even assist in cross examination of the state's uh expert witness. You can't get more intimately involved. uh in the defense of a case than being involved in the cross examination of witnesses for the prosecution. That They The prosecution didn't have Uh a partisan expert either, but there was this the everyone who was appointed was a neutral expert serving the court, the prosecution and the defendant. So I think the red bees suggest you're asking for something uh that the prosecution

Unknown 3:53

didn't have didn't have an independent expert. Well, in in in our case it was very much like ache. I mean there were uh mental health experts who testified, but all of them are state experts. Uh a and uh What do you mean by

John G. Roberts 4:08

State experts? Provided by the State or working for the prosecution?

Unknown 4:13

No. They all work for the State Hospital. And so they as a result they were people who the lunacy commission which did the first examination or three doctors at the state hospital. That makes an evaluation and then report to the court. So you mean

John G. Roberts 4:27

they were pay for work by the state as opposed to being uh uh working for the prosecution for a particular result in a given case.

Unknown 4:38

That's true, Mr Chief Justice, but Had there been an issue which there was in this case and should have been litigated, certainly the state has no problem uh having an expert. The state can retain an expert, can retain more than one. I the l the right that was given in Ake was very modest.