Citation network
Ake Vs. Oklahoma
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 26, 1986
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 68 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Ake v. OklahomaSearch
-
U.S. 68 (1985) Ake v. OklahomaSearch
-
that he was entitled to such an evaluation by the Federal Constitution. On the basis of United States ex rel. Smith v. BaldiSearch
-
to assistance in preparation at the sentencing phase. Pp. 470 U. S. 83 -84. (c) United State ex rel. Smith v. BaldiSearch
-
for a psychiatric evaluation at state expense on the basis of this Court's decision in United States ex rel. Smith v. BaldiSearch
-
repeated his request for a psychiatrist and that the claim was thereby waived. 663 P.2d at 6. The court cited Hawkins v. StateSearch
-
is therefore properly exercised. The Oklahoma waiver rule does not apply to fundamental trial error. See Hawkins v. StateSearch
-
Gaddis Page 470 U. S. 75 v. StateSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Buchanan v. StateSearch
-
Williams v. StateSearch
-
law prong of the court's holding is not independent of federal law, and our jurisdiction is not precluded. See Herb v. PitcairnSearch
-
Enterprise Irrigation District v. FarmersSearch
-
transcript to an indigent defendant if the transcript is necessary to a decision on the merits of the appeal. Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
that an indigent defendant may not be required to pay a fee before filing a notice of appeal of his conviction, Burns v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 252 (1959), that an indigent defendant is entitled to the assistance of counsel at trial, Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
U. S. 335 (1963), and on his first direct appeal as of right, Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 353 (1963), and that such assistance must be effective. See Evitts v. LuceySearch
-
Indeed, in Little v. StreaterSearch
-
a State must purchase for the indigent defendant all the assistance that his wealthier counterpart might buy, see Ross v. MoffittSearch
-
Britt v. NorthSearch
-
and the risk of an erroneous deprivation of the affected interest if those safeguards are not provided. See Little v. StreaterSearch
-
symptoms of insanity, Solesbee v. BalkcomSearch
-
in many States of placing before the jury psychiatric testimony on the question of future dangerousness, see Barefoot v. EstelleSearch
-
sentencing phase. C The trial court in this case believed that our decision in United States ex rel. Smith v. BaldiSearch
-
obligation to provide access to a psychiatrist. For two reasons, we disagree. First, neither Smith nor McGarty v. O'BrienSearch
-
Smith v. BaldiSearch
-
Rogers v. StateSearch
-
in such cases, and the separate but related inquiries that due process and equal protection must trigger. See Evitts v. LuceySearch
-
extended to noncapital cases in State v. PeelerSearch
-
right recognized in all cases in People v. WorthySearch
-
State v. ClemonsSearch
-
State v. OlinSearch
-
People v. WatsonSearch
-
Owen v. StateSearch
-
State v. MadsonSearch
-
State v. AnayaSearch
-
State v. SuggettSearch
-
Commonwealth v. GelormoSearch
-
State v. CunninghamSearch
-
Reilly v. BarrySearch
-
offense. Once that burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the State to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. Ake v. StateSearch
-
any event, if such a defense is afforded, the burden of proving insanity can be placed on the defendant. See Patterson v. NewSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Ake v. OklahomaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial