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.
27 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee 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 |
|---|---|---|
Owens v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Thus, Linville is distinguishable and the Petitioner’s issues were not waived. 3 Owens v. State, 908 S.W.2d 923, 924 (Tenn. 1995) (concluding section 40-14-207(b) applies to capital post-conviction cases). -3- post-conviction proceedings in capital cases involving indigent petitioners, the court, in an ex parte hearing, may in its discretion determine that investigative or expert services or other similar services are necessary to ensure that the constitutional rights of the defendant are properly protected. 2000In Owens, the supreme court held that a motion for services should be granted if, at the ex parte hearing, the petitioner demonstrates by “specific factual proof that the services of an expert or an investigator are necessary to establish a ground for post- conviction relief, and the petitioner is unable to establish that ground for post-conviction relief by other available evidence.” Owens, 908 S.W.2d at 928 . | 4 | 7 |
State v. Barnettgreen2 sentences2025See Barnett, 909 S.W.2d at 430 (concluding that an ex parte hearing is required when the procedural criteria are satisfied). 2018In State v. Barnett, our supreme court explained the importance of an ex parte hearing when a defendant seeks to hire a state-funded psychiatric expert: “Indigent defendants who must seek state-funding to hire [an] expert should not be required to reveal their theory of defense when their more affluent counterparts, with funds to hire experts, are not required to reveal their theory of defense, or the identity of experts who are consulted, but who may not, or do not, testify at trial.” 909 S.W.2d 423, 428 (Tenn. 1995). | 3 | 11 |
Davis v. Stategreen2 sentences2010However, in Davis v. State, 912 S.W.2d 689, 695 (Tenn. 1995), in response to a post-conviction petitioner's request, following a rape conviction, for a “scientific analysis of petitioner's bodily fluids,” the court concluded that he was not entitled to such testing at state expense. 2002However, in Davis v. State, 912 S.W.2d 689, 694 (Tenn. 1995), in response to a post-conviction petitioner’s request, following a rape conviction, for a “scientific analysis of petitioner’s bodily fluids,” the court concluded that he was not entitled to such testing at state expense. | 2 | 2 |
State of Tennessee v. Henry Lee Jonesgreen1 sentence2022App. Oct. 10, 2021), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Feb. 23, 2022) (concluding that although the transcript of the hearing on the ex parte motion for additional funding was not included in the appellate record, the record includes the trial court’s articulation of its reasoning for denying additional funding and is, therefore, adequate for review, with the presumption that any missing portion would support the trial court’s decision); see State v. Jones, 568 S.W.3d 101, 137 (Tenn. 2019) (noting that the defendant failed to include a transcript of the ex parte hearing on expert funding but holding th | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brownred1 sentence2010See State v. Brown, 836 S.W.2d 530, 539, 543 (Tenn. 199 2). -9- state to his defense. | 1 | 1 |
State v. James Harvestgreen1 sentence2000Moreover, the State cites this court’s opinion in State v. Harvest, 967 S.W.2d 829, 832-833 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Stategreen1 sentence1999Co de Ann . § 40-14-207(b) (stating that the court “in an ex parte hearing may, in its discretion, determine that investigative or expert services or other similar service s are neces sary to ensure that the constitutional rights of the defendant are properly protected”)); see Owens, 908 S.W.2d at 929 (observing that § 40-14-207(b) “vests with the trial court discretion to determine if investigative or expert services a re neces sary to ensure that the mova nt’s constitutional rights are protected”); Thom pson v. S tate, 958 S.W.2d 156, 169 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Evansgreen1 sentence1999To demo nstrate n ecessity, a defendant should meet the sam e test a s requ ired by courts review ing dire ct app eals in capita l cases: “The defendant must show that a substantial need exists requiring the assistance of state paid supporting services and that his defense cannot be fully developed without such professional assistance.” State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 192 (Tenn. 1992); Owens, 908 S.W.2d at 928 (adopting rule in Evans for post- conviction petitioners in capital cases). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Lloyd M. Pelton, United States of America v. Jacqueline Richgreen1 sentence1997See Pelton, 578 F.2d at 707 . | 1 | 1 |
Ake v. Oklahomagreen2 sentences1995There, the United States Supreme Court stated that once a defendant has made "an ex parte threshold showing to the trial court that his sanity is likely to be a significant factor in his defense, the need for the assistance of a psychiatrist is readily apparent." Id., 470 U.S. at 83 , 105 S.Ct. at 1097 (emphasis added). 1995There, the United States Supreme Court stated that once a defendant has made "an ex parte threshold showing to the trial court that his sanity is likely to be a significant factor in his defense, the need for the assistance of a psychiatrist is readily apparent." Id., 470 U.S. at 83 , 105 S.Ct. at 1097 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Michael Apeltgreen2 sentences1995App. 1987) ( Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre- Ake case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La. 1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant would be prejudiced by disclosure of his defense at an adversarial hearing); People v. Loyer, 169 Mich. App. 105 , 425 N.W.2d 714 (1988) (Statute declared unconstitutional which required indigent defendants to disclose the names, addresses, and expected t 1995App. 1987) ( Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre- Ake case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La. 1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant would be prejudiced by disclosure of his defense at an adversarial hearing); People v. Loyer, 169 Mich. App. 105 , 425 N.W.2d 714 (1988) (Statute declared unconstitutional which required indigent defendants to disclose the names, addresses, and expected t | 1 | 1 |
Brooks v. Stategreen2 sentences1995See also Brooks v. State, 259 Ga. 562 , 385 S.E.2d 81 (1989) (Hearings must be ex parte, but State must be given notice of the filing of the motion and may submit a brief in opposition to the request for funding); McGregor v. State, 733 P.2d 416 (Okla.Crim.App.1987) (Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre-Afce case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La.1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant w 1995See also Brooks v. State, 259 Ga. 562 , 385 S.E.2d 81 (1989) (Hearings must be ex parte, but State must be given notice of the filing of the motion and may submit a brief in opposition to the request for funding); McGregor v. State, 733 P.2d 416 (Okla.Crim.App.1987) (Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre-Afce case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La.1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant w | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cazesgreen1 sentence1995NOTES [1] Citing as other examples of cases recognizing the "basic tools," Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 , 105 S.Ct. 830 , 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985); Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 , 83 S.Ct. 814 , 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) (Indigent defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on his first direct appeal as of right); Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 252 , 79 S.Ct. 1164 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1209 (1959) (State may not require indigent defendant to pay fee before filing notice of appeal); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. Duggergreen2 sentences1995See also Ramdass v. Commonwealth, 246 Ya. 413, 437 S.E.2d 566 (1993) (no state or federal constitutional right to an ex parte hearing); State v. Floody, 481 N.W.2d 242 (S.D.1992) (due process not violated by State’s presence at hearing in which defendant requested expert assistance); Clark v. Dugger, 834 F.2d 1561 (11th Cir. 1987) (“trial judge under no constitutional duty to grant defendant’s request for a psychiatric expert to report confidentially to his counsel”). 2 The majority, however, objects to this conclusion, stating that: The dissent’s conclusion overlooks the significant differenc 1995See also Ramdass v. Commonwealth, 246 Va. 413 , 437 S.E.2d 566 (1993) (no state or federal constitutional right to an ex parte hearing); State v. Floody, 481 N.W.2d 242 (S.D. 1992) (due process not violated by State's presence at hearing in which defendant requested expert assistance); Clark v. Dugger, 834 F.2d 1561 (11th Cir.1987) ("trial judge under no constitutional duty to grant defendant's request for a psychiatric expert to report confidentially to his counsel"). [2] The majority, however, objects to this conclusion, stating that: The dissent's conclusion overlooks the significant differ | 1 | 1 |
Ramdass v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1995See also Ramdass v. Commonwealth, 246 Va. 413 , 437 S.E.2d 566 (1993) (no state or federal constitutional right to an ex parte hearing); State v. Floody, 481 N.W.2d 242 (S.D. 1992) (due process not violated by State's presence at hearing in which defendant requested expert assistance); Clark v. Dugger, 834 F.2d 1561 (11th Cir.1987) ("trial judge under no constitutional duty to grant defendant's request for a psychiatric expert to report confidentially to his counsel"). [2] The majority, however, objects to this conclusion, stating that: The dissent's conclusion overlooks the significant differ 1995See also Ramdass v. Commonwealth, 246 Va. 413 , 437 S.E.2d 566 (1993) (no state or federal constitutional right to an ex parte hearing); State v. Floody, 481 N.W.2d 242 (S.D. 1992) (due process not violated by State's presence at hearing in which defendant requested expert assistance); Clark v. Dugger, 834 F.2d 1561 (11th Cir.1987) ("trial judge under no constitutional duty to grant defendant's request for a psychiatric expert to report confidentially to his counsel"). [2] The majority, however, objects to this conclusion, stating that: The dissent's conclusion overlooks the significant differ | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Phillipsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Harrison
green
1 sentence2017Judicial proceedings usually involve more than one party.3 Additionally, we agree with Centerstone that an ex parte hearing is inconsistent with the rights of a mental health service recipient as set forth in State v. Harrison, 270 S.W.3d 21 (Tenn. 2008). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Floody green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Touchet
green
2 sentences1995See also Brooks v. State, 259 Ga. 562 , 385 S.E.2d 81 (1989) (Hearings must be ex parte, but State must be given notice of the filing of the motion and may submit a brief in opposition to the request for funding); McGregor v. State, 733 P.2d 416 (Okla.Crim.App.1987) (Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre-Afce case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La.1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant w 1995App. 1987) ( Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre- Ake case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La. 1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant would be prejudiced by disclosure of his defense at an adversarial hearing); People v. Loyer, 169 Mich. App. 105 , 425 N.W.2d 714 (1988) (Statute declared unconstitutional which required indigent defendants to disclose the names, addresses, and expected t | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Burns v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1995NOTES [1] Citing as other examples of cases recognizing the "basic tools," Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 , 105 S.Ct. 830 , 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985); Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 , 83 S.Ct. 814 , 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) (Indigent defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on his first direct appeal as of right); Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 252 , 79 S.Ct. 1164 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1209 (1959) (State may not require indigent defendant to pay fee before filing notice of appeal); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. 1995NOTES [1] Citing as other examples of cases recognizing the "basic tools," Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 , 105 S.Ct. 830 , 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985); Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 , 83 S.Ct. 814 , 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) (Indigent defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on his first direct appeal as of right); Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 252 , 79 S.Ct. 1164 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1209 (1959) (State may not require indigent defendant to pay fee before filing notice of appeal); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Griffin v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1995NOTES [1] Citing as other examples of cases recognizing the "basic tools," Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 , 105 S.Ct. 830 , 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985); Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 , 83 S.Ct. 814 , 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) (Indigent defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on his first direct appeal as of right); Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 252 , 79 S.Ct. 1164 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1209 (1959) (State may not require indigent defendant to pay fee before filing notice of appeal); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. 1995NOTES [1] Citing as other examples of cases recognizing the "basic tools," Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 , 105 S.Ct. 830 , 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985); Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 , 83 S.Ct. 814 , 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) (Indigent defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on his first direct appeal as of right); Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 252 , 79 S.Ct. 1164 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1209 (1959) (State may not require indigent defendant to pay fee before filing notice of appeal); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Teague v. State
green
2 sentences1995In each proceeding the trial court denied the motion, relying on Teague v. State, 772 S.W.2d 915 (Tenn.Crim.App.1988), perm, app. denied, (Tenn.1989). 1995In each proceeding the trial court denied the motion, relying on Teague v. State, 772 S.W.2d 915 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Pearson
green
2 sentences1995There, the United States Supreme Court stated that once a defendant has made “an ex parte threshold showing to the trial court that his sanity is likely to be a significant factor in his defense, the need for the assistance of a psychiatrist is readily apparent.” Id., 470 U.S. at 83 , 105 S.Ct. at 1097 (emphasis added). 1995There, the United States Supreme Court stated that once a defendant has made "an ex parte threshold showing to the trial court that his sanity is likely to be a significant factor in his defense, the need for the assistance of a psychiatrist is readily apparent." Id., 470 U.S. at 83 , 105 S.Ct. at 1097 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Douglas v. California
green
2 sentences1995NOTES [1] Citing as other examples of cases recognizing the "basic tools," Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 , 105 S.Ct. 830 , 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985); Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 , 83 S.Ct. 814 , 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) (Indigent defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on his first direct appeal as of right); Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 252 , 79 S.Ct. 1164 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1209 (1959) (State may not require indigent defendant to pay fee before filing notice of appeal); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. 1995NOTES [1] Citing as other examples of cases recognizing the "basic tools," Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 , 105 S.Ct. 830 , 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985); Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 , 83 S.Ct. 814 , 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) (Indigent defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on his first direct appeal as of right); Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 252 , 79 S.Ct. 1164 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1209 (1959) (State may not require indigent defendant to pay fee before filing notice of appeal); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Gideon v. Wainwright
green
2 sentences1995NOTES [1] Citing as other examples of cases recognizing the "basic tools," Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 , 105 S.Ct. 830 , 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985); Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 , 83 S.Ct. 814 , 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) (Indigent defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on his first direct appeal as of right); Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 252 , 79 S.Ct. 1164 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1209 (1959) (State may not require indigent defendant to pay fee before filing notice of appeal); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. 1995NOTES [1] Citing as other examples of cases recognizing the "basic tools," Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 , 105 S.Ct. 830 , 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985); Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 , 83 S.Ct. 814 , 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) (Indigent defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on his first direct appeal as of right); Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 252 , 79 S.Ct. 1164 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1209 (1959) (State may not require indigent defendant to pay fee before filing notice of appeal); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
McGregor v. State
green
2 sentences1995See also Brooks v. State, 259 Ga. 562 , 385 S.E.2d 81 (1989) (Hearings must be ex parte, but State must be given notice of the filing of the motion and may submit a brief in opposition to the request for funding); McGregor v. State, 733 P.2d 416 (Okla.Crim.App.1987) (Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre-Afce case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La.1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant w 1995See also Brooks v. State, 259 Ga. 562 , 385 S.E.2d 81 (1989) (Hearings must be ex parte, but State must be given notice of the filing of the motion and may submit a brief in opposition to the request for funding); McGregor v. State, 733 P.2d 416 (Okla. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Arnold v. Higa
green
2 sentences1995App. 1987) ( Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre- Ake case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La. 1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant would be prejudiced by disclosure of his defense at an adversarial hearing); People v. Loyer, 169 Mich. App. 105 , 425 N.W.2d 714 (1988) (Statute declared unconstitutional which required indigent defendants to disclose the names, addresses, and expected t 1995App. 1987) ( Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre- Ake case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La. 1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant would be prejudiced by disclosure of his defense at an adversarial hearing); People v. Loyer, 169 Mich. App. 105 , 425 N.W.2d 714 (1988) (Statute declared unconstitutional which required indigent defendants to disclose the names, addresses, and expected t | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Britt v. North Carolina
green
2 sentences1995Because Rule 12.2 effectively requires the defendant to disclose as much information as does the threshold hearing, and because the majority does not suggest that the rule is unconstitutional, I cannot agree that indigent defendants are penalized in a constitutional sense by having to request psychiatric assistance in the presence of the State. [3] Because I do not believe that an ex parte hearing in this context is one of the "basic tools of an adequate defense or appeal," Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 227 , 92 S.Ct. 431, 433 , 30 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971), [4] I respectfully dissent from t 1995Because Rule 12.2 effectively requires the defendant to disclose as much information as does the threshold hearing, and because the majority does not suggest that the rule is unconstitutional, I cannot agree that indigent defendants are penalized in a constitutional sense by having to request psychiatric assistance in the presence of the State. [3] Because I do not believe that an ex parte hearing in this context is one of the "basic tools of an adequate defense or appeal," Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 227 , 92 S.Ct. 431, 433 , 30 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971), [4] I respectfully dissent from t | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Peeples
green
2 sentences1995App. 1987) ( Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre- Ake case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La. 1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant would be prejudiced by disclosure of his defense at an adversarial hearing); People v. Loyer, 169 Mich. App. 105 , 425 N.W.2d 714 (1988) (Statute declared unconstitutional which required indigent defendants to disclose the names, addresses, and expected t 1995App. 1987) ( Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre- Ake case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La. 1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant would be prejudiced by disclosure of his defense at an adversarial hearing); People v. Loyer, 169 Mich. App. 105 , 425 N.W.2d 714 (1988) (Statute declared unconstitutional which required indigent defendants to disclose the names, addresses, and expected t | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Loyer
green
2 sentences1995App. 1987) ( Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre- Ake case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La. 1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant would be prejudiced by disclosure of his defense at an adversarial hearing); People v. Loyer, 169 Mich. App. 105 , 425 N.W.2d 714 (1988) (Statute declared unconstitutional which required indigent defendants to disclose the names, addresses, and expected t 1995App. 1987) ( Ake requires ex parte hearings); Cf. Arnold v. Higa, 61 Haw. 203 , 600 P.2d 1383 (1979) (Pre- Ake case which holds that a defendant is entitled to an ex parte hearing upon request); State v. Touchet, 642 So.2d 1213 (La. 1994) (Indigent defendant must be afforded an ex parte hearing if the trial court determines that the defendant would be prejudiced by disclosure of his defense at an adversarial hearing); People v. Loyer, 169 Mich. App. 105 , 425 N.W.2d 714 (1988) (Statute declared unconstitutional which required indigent defendants to disclose the names, addresses, and expected t | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Ballard
green
2 sentences1995State v. Ballard, 333 N.C. 515 , 428 S.E.2d 178 (1993). [3] The only plausible advantage to the defendant of ex parte threshold hearings in this context is that the defendant is able to keep secret the identity of experts consulted, but who do not testify at trial. 1995State v. Ballard, 333 N.C. 515 , 428 S.E.2d 178 (1993). [3] The only plausible advantage to the defendant of ex parte threshold hearings in this context is that the defendant is able to keep secret the identity of experts consulted, but who do not testify at trial. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Evitts v. Lucey
green
2 sentences1995NOTES [1] Citing as other examples of cases recognizing the "basic tools," Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 , 105 S.Ct. 830 , 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985); Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 , 83 S.Ct. 814 , 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) (Indigent defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on his first direct appeal as of right); Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 252 , 79 S.Ct. 1164 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1209 (1959) (State may not require indigent defendant to pay fee before filing notice of appeal); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. 1995NOTES [1] Citing as other examples of cases recognizing the "basic tools," Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 , 105 S.Ct. 830 , 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985); Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 , 83 S.Ct. 814 , 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) (Indigent defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on his first direct appeal as of right); Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 252 , 79 S.Ct. 1164 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1209 (1959) (State may not require indigent defendant to pay fee before filing notice of appeal); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Hamilton v. State green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Morgan v. United States green | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.