(a) Counsel appointed by the court for an indigent defendant, or representing a defendant who, at the outset of the prosecution, has an annual income not greater than 125 percent of the poverty line established under United States Code, title 42, section 9902(2), may file an ex parte application requesting investigative, expert, interpreter, or other services necessary to an adequate defense in the case. Upon finding, after appropriate inquiry in an ex parte proceeding, that the services are necessary and that the defendant is financially unable to obtain them, the court shall authorize counsel to obtain the services on behalf of the defendant. The court may establish a limit on the amount which may be expended or promised for such services. The court may, in the interests of justice, and upon a finding that timely procurement of necessary services could not await prior authorization, ratify such services after they have been obtained, but such ratification shall be given only in unusual situations. The court shall determine reasonable compensation for the services and direct payment by the county in which the prosecution originated, to the organization or person who rendered them, upon the filing of a claim for compensation supported by an affidavit specifying the time expended, services rendered, and expenses incurred on behalf of the defendant, and the compensation received in the same case or for the same services from any other source.
(b) The compensation to be paid to a person for such service rendered to a defendant under this section, or to be paid to an organization for such services rendered by an employee, may not exceed $1,000, exclusive of reimbursement for expenses reasonably incurred, unless payment in excess of that limit is certified by the court as necessary to provide fair compensation for services of an unusual character or duration and the amount of the excess payment is approved by the chief judge of the district. The chief judge of the judicial district may delegate approval authority to an active district judge.
(c) If the court denies authorizing counsel to obtain services on behalf of the defendant, the court shall make written findings of fact and conclusions of law that state the basis for determining that counsel may not obtain services on behalf of the defendant. When the court issues an order denying counsel the authority to obtain services, the defendant may appeal immediately from that order to the court of appeals and may request an expedited hearing.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases, 1985–2016 · leading case:
Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985).
Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985).
· cites it 2× “1983); Minn. Stat. § 611.21 (1982); Miss. Code Ann.”
In Re Olson, 648 N.W.2d 226 (Minn. 2002).
· cites it 8× “Olson requested public funding for a toxicology expert and investigative services under Minn.Stat. § 611.21(a) (2000). The district court denied funding for the expert and for investigative services.”
Application of Jobe, 477 N.W.2d 723 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 32× “The order limited expert witness fees to $5000. On June 22, 1990, Jobe's attorney requested an additional $20,000 for DNA experts.”
State v. Beecroft, 813 N.W.2d 814 (Minn. 2012).
· cites it 2× “251 ; see also Minn.Stat. § 611.21 (2010) (requiring a district court to authorize expert witness fees for indigent defendant if the court finds that the expert services are necessary).”
Phillip Anthony Roberts v. State of Minnesota, 856 N.W.2d 287 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 611.21(a) (2004) (authorizing court-appointed counsel to file an application for expert services and the court to direct payment for such services by the county in which the prosecution originates).”
State v. Richards, 495 N.W.2d 187 (Minn. 1992).
· cites it 2× “In addition, Minn.Stat. § 611.21 (1990) requires the court to authorize expert witness fees for an indigent defendant if it finds that the expert services are necessary.”
State v. Touchet, 642 So. 2d 1213 (La. 1994).
· cites it 2× “With the exception of those sentiments set forth herein, I concur in the majority opinion, and I concur in the result therein.”
State v. Volker, 477 N.W.2d 909 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 8× “ISSUE Did the trial court deny appellant her right to a fair trial when it authorized only $400 in expert witness fees under Minn. Stat. § 611.21 (1990)? ANALYSIS The determination of expert witness fees is a matter within the discretion of the trial court.”
Moore v. State, 889 A.2d 325 (Md. 2005).
“Courts have split as to the necessity of ex parte hearings. Several states have statutes requiring an ex parte hearing when an indigent defendant requests appointment of an expert.”
Haugen v. Superior Dev., Inc., 819 N.W.2d 715 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “01 (2010) (authorizing commencement, defense, or appeal of an action without prepayment of fees, costs, and security for costs if the natural person provides an affidavit stating, among other things, that he is unable to pay the fees, costs, and security for costs); Minn.”
State v. Goulet, 1999 ND 80 (N.D. 1999).
“§ 3006A(e); Minn.Stat. Ann. § 611.21. We recognize the concern of the defense bar.”
Addison v. State, 917 A.2d 1200 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2007).
“, Minn.Stat. § 611.21 (2003); S.C. Stat. § 16-3-26(c) (2003); Tenn.”
— Minn. Stat. § 611.21(a) — 4 cases
In Re Olson, 648 N.W.2d 226 (Minn. 2002).
“Olson requested public funding for a toxicology expert and investigative services under Minn.Stat. § 611.21(a) (2000). The district court denied funding for the expert and for investigative services.”
Phillip Anthony Roberts v. State of Minnesota, 856 N.W.2d 287 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014).
“See Minn.Stat. § 611.21(a) (2004) (authorizing court-appointed counsel to file an application for expert services and the court to direct payment for such services by the county in which the prosecution originates).”
Application of Jobe, 477 N.W.2d 723 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
“The order limited expert witness fees to $5000. On June 22, 1990, Jobe's attorney requested an additional $20,000 for DNA experts.”
— Minn. Stat. § 611.21(b) — 1 case
— Minn. Stat. § 611.21(c) — 1 case
In Re Olson, 648 N.W.2d 226 (Minn. 2002).
“Olson requested public funding for a toxicology expert and investigative services under Minn.Stat. § 611.21(a) (2000). The district court denied funding for the expert and for investigative services.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.