Chao v. State
Supreme Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
VEASEY, Chief Justice:
In this appeal, we address whether an indigent defendant in a criminal case who is represented by private counsel was constitutionally entitled to public funds to retain a medical expert who could testify in support of the defendant’s version of events. We conclude that the State was not constitutionally required to pay for the expert services sought by the defense because, in the circumstances of this case, the services were not among the “basic tools of an adequate defense.” Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
As guidance for future eases, we also…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Delaware v. Van ArsdallSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Ake v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Patterson v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Howell v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 2003
- State v. SchoonmakerNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2008
- Moore v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005
- Dowdy v. Com.Supreme Court of Virginia · 2009
- Chao v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2007
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.