Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
38 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ake v. Oklahomagreen2 sentences2025See Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 74 , 76–77, 105 S. Ct. 1087 , 1091–93 (1985) (holding due process requires an indigent criminal defendant be given “access to the raw materials integral to the building of an effective defense” including the appointment of forensic experts); Rey v. State, 897 S.W.2d 333 , 345 n.13 (Tex. Crim. 2025See Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 74 , 76–77, 105 S. Ct. 1087 , 1091–93 (1985) (holding due process requires an indigent criminal defendant be given “access to the raw materials integral to the building of an effective defense” including the appointment of forensic experts); Rey v. State, 897 S.W.2d 333 , 345 n.13 (Tex. Crim. | 11 | 31 |
Rey v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 74 , 76–77, 105 S. Ct. 1087 , 1091–93 (1985) (holding due process requires an indigent criminal defendant be given “access to the raw materials integral to the building of an effective defense” including the appointment of forensic experts); Rey v. State, 897 S.W.2d 333 , 345 n.13 (Tex. Crim. 2025Ake v. Oklahoma Finally, under the rule established by Ake v. Oklahoma, an indigent criminal defendant has a constitutional due-process right to “access to the raw materials integral to the building of an effective defense” including the appointment of a forensic expert to assist defense counsel in formulating and presenting evidence in support of such defense. 470 U.S. at 74 , 76–77, 105 S. Ct. at 1091–93; Rey v. State, 897 S.W.2d 333 , 337– 39 (Tex. Crim. | 5 | 6 |
Jimenez, Ex Parte Rosa Estela Olveragreen2 sentences2024“While the appointment of an expert may be required in some circumstances, the state does not need to ‘purchase for the indigent defendant all the assistance that his wealthier counterpart might buy.’” Id. (quoting Ake, 470 U.S. at 77 ); see Jimenez, 364 S.W.3d at 876-77 . 2022An indigent defendant must have “access to the raw materials integral to the building of an effective defense.” Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 77 (1985). 22 However, the State need not “purchase for the indigent defendant all the assistance that his wealthier counterpart might buy.” Id.; see Ex parte Jimenez, 364 S.W.3d 866, 877 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Busby v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See, e.g., Ex parte White, 160 S.W.3d 46, 53 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (defense counsel is not ineffective for failing to object to admissible evidence); Muniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238, 258 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (the failure to object to admissible evidence is not ineffective assistance of counsel); Weinn v. State, 281 S.W.3d 633, 641 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2009) (“The failure of appellant's counsel to request a mistrial could only be termed an act of ineffective assistance of counsel if a mistrial should have been granted.”), aff'd on other grounds 326 S.W.3d 189 (Tex.Crim.App.2010). 72 .Ake, 470 U.S. at 2012Ake , 470 U.S. at 77 (State must ensure that an indigent defendant "has access to the raw materials integral to the building of an effective defense," but "the State need not " purchase for an indigent defendant all the assistance that his wealthier counterparts might buy,"); Busby v. State , 990 S.W.2d 263, 271 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Griffith v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Griffith v. State, 983 S.W.2d 282, 286 (Tex. Crim. 2012Griffith v. State, 983 S.W.2d 282 , 286–87 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 5 |
De Freece v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Due process for a defense of insanity requires that a defendant be given access to the “raw materials integral to the building of an effective defense” so that he may be “at least minimally equipped to participate meaningfully in [the] adversarial process.” De Freece v. State, 848 S.W.2d 150, 155-158 (Tex. Crim. 2013App. 1995); DeFreece v. State, 848 S.W.2d 150 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 3 |
McBride v. Stategreen2 sentences2025App. 1995) (“We have recognized the relationship between the fundamental right to effective assistance of counsel and the indigent’s right to the appointment of an expert.” (citing McBride v. State, 838 S.W.2d 248 , 251–52 (Tex. Crim. 2015McBride, 838 S.W.2d at 252 (“[W]hen the case is reasonably certain to proceed to trial, the trial *615 judge should, upon request, permit inspection of the substance alleged in the indictment.”). 15 Under Ake , for meaningful access to justice, a defendant must have “access to the raw materials integral to the building of an effective defense.” 470 U.S. at 77 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 . | 1 | 2 |
Ross v. Moffittgreen1 sentence2025“The consistent theme” is “[m]eaningful access to justice,” and “fundamental fairness entitles . . . defendants to ‘an adequate opportunity to present their claims fairly within the adversary system.’” Id. at 77 (quoting Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600, 612 (1974)). | 1 | 1 |
Weinn v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See, e.g., Ex parte White, 160 S.W.3d 46, 53 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (defense counsel is not ineffective for failing to object to admissible evidence); Muniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238, 258 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (the failure to object to admissible evidence is not ineffective assistance of counsel); Weinn v. State, 281 S.W.3d 633, 641 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2009) (“The failure of appellant's counsel to request a mistrial could only be termed an act of ineffective assistance of counsel if a mistrial should have been granted.”), aff'd on other grounds 326 S.W.3d 189 (Tex.Crim.App.2010). 72 .Ake, 470 U.S. at | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Whitegreen1 sentence2012See, e.g., Ex parte White, 160 S.W.3d 46, 53 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (defense counsel is not ineffective for failing to object to admissible evidence); Muniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238, 258 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (the failure to object to admissible evidence is not ineffective assistance of counsel); Weinn v. State, 281 S.W.3d 633, 641 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2009) (“The failure of appellant's counsel to request a mistrial could only be termed an act of ineffective assistance of counsel if a mistrial should have been granted.”), aff'd on other grounds 326 S.W.3d 189 (Tex.Crim.App.2010). 72 .Ake, 470 U.S. at | 1 | 1 |
Muniz v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See, e.g., Ex parte White, 160 S.W.3d 46, 53 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (defense counsel is not ineffective for failing to object to admissible evidence); Muniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238, 258 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (the failure to object to admissible evidence is not ineffective assistance of counsel); Weinn v. State, 281 S.W.3d 633, 641 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2009) (“The failure of appellant's counsel to request a mistrial could only be termed an act of ineffective assistance of counsel if a mistrial should have been granted.”), aff'd on other grounds 326 S.W.3d 189 (Tex.Crim.App.2010). 72 .Ake, 470 U.S. at | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ehrke, Robert Bradley
green
1 sentence2024“Under Ake, for meaningful access to justice, a defendant must have ‘access to the raw materials integral to the building of an effective defense.’” Ehrke, 459 S.W.3d at 615 (quoting Ake, 470 U.S. at 77 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Weinn v. State
green
1 sentence2012See, e.g., Ex parte White, 160 S.W.3d 46, 53 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (defense counsel is not ineffective for failing to object to admissible evidence); Muniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238, 258 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (the failure to object to admissible evidence is not ineffective assistance of counsel); Weinn v. State, 281 S.W.3d 633, 641 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2009) (“The failure of appellant's counsel to request a mistrial could only be termed an act of ineffective assistance of counsel if a mistrial should have been granted.”), aff'd on other grounds 326 S.W.3d 189 (Tex.Crim.App.2010). 72 .Ake, 470 U.S. at | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Williams v. State
green
2 sentences1998This holding is premised upon the notion that an indigent is entitled to "meaningful access to justice" which means he should have "access to the raw materials integral to the building of an effective defense" thus ensuring "a proper functioning of the adversary process." Williams, 958 S.W.2d at 192 . 1998This holding is premised upon the notion that an indigent is entitled to “meaningful access to justice” which means he should have “access to the raw materials integral to the building of an effective defense” thus ensuring “a proper functioning of the adversary process.” Williams, 958 S.W.2d at 192 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Caldwell v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences1997This holding is premised upon the notion that an indigent is entitled to “meaningful access to justice” which means that he should have “access to the raw materials integral to the building of an effective defense” thus ensuring “a proper functioning of the adversary process.” In order to make the required threshold showing for appointment of an expert under Ake , the indigent defendant’s claim must be based upon more “than undeveloped assertions that the requested assistance would be beneficial.” Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 , 323-24 n. 1, 105 S.Ct. 2633 , 2637 n. 1, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 ( 1997This holding is premised upon the notion that an indigent is entitled to “meaningful access to justice” which means that he should have “access to the raw materials integral to the building of an effective defense” thus ensuring “a proper functioning of the adversary process.” In order to make the required threshold showing for appointment of an expert under Ake , the indigent defendant’s claim must be based upon more “than undeveloped assertions that the requested assistance would be beneficial.” Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 , 323-24 n. 1, 105 S.Ct. 2633 , 2637 n. 1, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 ( | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Kenneth Granviel v. James A. Lynaugh, Director Texas Department of Corrections
green
1 sentence1993The Fifth Circuit denied relief, holding that the Texas procedure was sufficient to comply with Ake , essentially because it believed that “[a]vailability of a neutral expert provides defendants with ‘the raw materials integral to the building of an effective defense.’ ” 881 F.2d at 192 , quoting Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. at 77 , 105 S.Ct. at 1093 , 84 L.Ed.2d at 62 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.