Supreme Court of Alabama· 9/27/1996

Ex Parte Moody

Citations

684 So. 2d 114
1996 WL 197209

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that “an indigent defendant is not entitled to the expert of his particular choice, but is entitled to a competent expert in the field of expertise that has been found necessary to the defense”
noting that ‘‘the trial court . . . can adequately protect taxpayers from unwise expenditures of money while at the same time protecting the constitutional rights of indigent defendants’’
allowing for ex parte hearings to determine whether an indigent defendant is entitled to the assistance of an expert witness
“An indigent defendant should not have to disclose to the state information that a financially secure defendant would not have to disclose.”
`[ T]he indigent defendant must show, with reasonable specificity, that the expert is absolutely necessary to answer a substantial issue or question raised by the state or to support a critical element of the defense.'
“[T]he indigent defendant must show, with reasonably specificity, that the expert is absolutely necessary to answer a substantial issue or question raised by the state of to support a critical element of the defense.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Per Curiam

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

47 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

37 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.