October Term 2016 · Docket 16-5294
Does a state-appointed psychiatrist working for the prosecution satisfy due process?
The dispute centers on whether a defendant receives adequate psychiatric help when the state assigns an expert to the prosecution.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Bright argued that the 1985 precedent clearly established the right to neutral assistance.
General Brasher argued that the precedent did not require a neutral expert.
Justice Roberts asked whether the expert worked for the state or the prosecution.
Justice Sotomayor noted that the expert requested additional help late in the process.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 44-1 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 44-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 22-34 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 22-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 6-18 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 6-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 22-48 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 22-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-34 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 36-6 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 36-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 20-26 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 20-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 48-48 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 48-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 52-20 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 52-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 24-26 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 24-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 30-32 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 30-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 40-18 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 40-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 44-12 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 44-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 32-24 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 32-24
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests the scope of the right to expert assistance in criminal trials.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 22-48 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 22-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-34 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-34
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 24, 2017.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
What each side wants
the side that brought the case seeks a ruling that the state must provide a neutral expert.
the opposing side seeks a ruling that the current expert arrangement satisfies due process.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 22-48 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 22-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-34 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-34
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues that a prosecutor's expert violates the right to a viable defense.
the opposing side argues that the state provided sufficient psychiatric assistance under existing law.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 22-48 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 22-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-34 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-34
What the justices asked
Justice Kennedy asked if the law requires the expert to consult only with the defense.
Justice Sotomayor asked what specific aid a defendant needs to mount a viable defense.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 44-1 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 44-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 22-34 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 22-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 6-18 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 6-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 36-6 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 36-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 20-26 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 20-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 48-48 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 48-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 52-20 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 52-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 24-26 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 24-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 30-32 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 30-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 40-18 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 40-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 44-12 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 44-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 32-24 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 32-24
Why it matters
This case defines the independence of state-funded experts in criminal trials. It determines whether defendants receive neutral psychiatric assistance. The outcome shapes the fairness of future criminal proceedings.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 22-48 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 22-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-34 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-34
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 44-1 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 44-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 22-34 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 22-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 6-18 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 6-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 36-6 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 36-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 20-26 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 20-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 48-48 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 48-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 52-20 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 52-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 24-26 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 24-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 30-32 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 30-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 40-18 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 40-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 44-12 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 44-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 32-24 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 32-24
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 22-48 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 22-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-34 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 22-48 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 22-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-34 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-34
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.