Tennessee Supreme Court· 11/13/1995

State v. Barnett

Citations

909 S.W.2d 423
1995 Tenn. LEXIS 672

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that a hearing is required upon a motion conforming with the requirements of Rule 13
stating that \[t]he physician interpreting the results agreed with the neuropsychologist that the CT scan would not detect subtle abnormalities\
explaining that if ex parte hearings are not required, indigent defendants are, in effect, penalized for requesting psychiatric expert assistance by having to disclose potential witnesses or potential defenses and, as a result, could be deterred from seeking such assistance
requiring that indigent defendant, to be entitled the assistance of a State-funded psychiatric expert, first make a threshold showing of particularized need for assistance of expert, i.e., “that a psychiatric expert is necessary to protect his right to a fair trial”
outlining a two-prong test for determining whether a defendant has made the threshold showing of “particularized need” for a state-funded psychiatric expert
“Only in the relative freedom of a non-adversarial atmosphere can the defense drop inhibitions regarding its strategies and put before the trial court all available evidence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Anderson, Reid, White, Wade, Drowota

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

38 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.