Ake v. Oklahoma
- Decided
- February 26, 1985
- Docket
- 83-5424
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,332 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that due process entitles an indigent defendant to the assistance of a psychiatrist for the development of his defense — (untitled) (1996)
- holding that due process requires states to provide indigent defendants with psychiatric assistance where sanity is likely to be a significant factor at trial — (untitled) (2005)
- holding that to provide effective defense, indigent defendants must have access to basic tools of defense — State v. Burns (2000)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether the Constitution requires that an indigent defendant have access to the psychiatric examination and assistance necessary to prepare an effective defense based on his mental condition, when his sanity at the time of the offense is seriously in question.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985)Read the full opinion
Free account needed
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.