Securing Expert Assistance for Insanity Defense and Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Lillian Svete; Kennedy Werner; Jessica Povlinski

doi:10.29158/JAAPL.250086L2-25

Defaulting Ake Claims Not Sufficient Grounds to Prove Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

In Crawford v. Cain, 122 F.4th 158 (5th Cir. 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected Charles Ray Crawford’s claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for not securing expert psychiatric assistance for an insanity defense and that his direct-appeal counsel was ineffective for not preserving this claim. Mr. Crawford had argued that the lack of psychiatric assistance violated Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985), which states that, if an indigent defendant’s sanity at time of the offense is to be a “significant factor at trial,” then the state must grant access to a competent psychiatrist for the preparation of the defense. Ultimately, the district court’s decision to deny habeas relief was upheld as not unreasonably wrong, per the strictures of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996.

Facts of the Case

Mr. Crawford raped a 17-year-old girl and was sentenced to 46 years imprisonment by a Mississippi trial court in 1993. At trial, Mr. Crawford raised an insanity defense without supporting expert testimony, claiming he experienced blackouts and had no memory of committing the crime. Lay witnesses, including Mr. Crawford’s mother and ex-wife, testified to spells that he experienced. Mr. Crawford also testified to his psychiatric treatment history and described spells that resulted in gaps in his memory. The state presented two expert witnesses who had evaluated Mr. Crawford. One expert had evaluated Mr. Crawford regarding his competency to stand trial as well as for the purpose of conducting a sanity evaluation. It was opined by the expert that there was not enough evidence to support a defense of legal insanity for Mr. Crawford. Procedurally, Mr. Crawford’s trial attorney had filed a motion under Ake seeking court-authorized psychiatric assistance to prepare and present an insanity defense. The trial court judge declined to grant funds for an independent expert unless further evidence of mental impairment was presented. Although the court allowed for renewal of the motion, the defense counsel did not file further motions on the matter.

Mr. Crawford’s conviction was upheld by the Mississippi Supreme Court on direct review. He later filed for state post-conviction relief, arguing, for the first time, that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to secure expert assistance in asserting his insanity defense under Ake. The Mississippi Supreme Court found that Mr. Crawford procedurally defaulted this claim because it could have been raised in the direct appeal and denied his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

Mr. Crawford subsequently filed a federal habeas petition, which was denied by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. He appealed the denial of his petition, and a rehearing en banc was granted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Ruling and Reasoning

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s denial of habeas corpus relief to Mr. Crawford. The court found that Mr. Crawford failed to demonstrate that either his trial counsel or direct-appeal counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance and that the state court’s adjudication of his claims did not violate the standards set by established federal law under the AEDPA, where federal courts may grant habeas relief only if the state court’s decision was an unreasonable application of established federal law. The Fifth Circuit ruled that the Mississippi Supreme Court’s resolution of Mr. Crawford’s ineffective assistance claims was within the bounds of reasonableness and thus not subject to federal reversal.

Mr. Crawford argued that his counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue an insanity defense under Ake. The court noted that there was not any record of evidence that the state trial court ever denied a request under Ake. Instead, the trial court noted that its preliminary rulings on the matter were without prejudice to further motions for examination or for funds. Mr. Crawford’s counsel never filed a further motion and thus defaulted on the Ake claim in the trial court. The court also found that Mr. Crawford’s Ake claim was not preserved on direct appeal. The court emphasized that appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise a claim that is not “plainly stronger” than the problems originally presented. Because appellate counsel is not required to raise unpreserved trial claims, the court concluded there was no constitutional deficiency.

In addition, the Fifth Circuit rejected the Ake claim by applying the standard set in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The Strickland standard requires evidence that the counsel’s performance was both “objectively deficient” and “prejudicial.” The court noted Mr. Crawford’s insanity defense was heard and rejected by a different jury in a related assault case, which effectively disproves prejudice. Additionally, the court rejected reliance on a post hoc affidavit that questioned Mr. Crawford’s sanity at the time of the offense, which was offered years after the trial, because it failed to demonstrate that trial counsel had overlooked any clear or compelling mental health evidence at the time of the trial.

Dissent

The dissent said that both trial and appellate counsel failed to pursue Mr. Crawford’s right to expert psychiatric assistance under Ake. It noted that the trial court misapplied Ake by essentially giving the state the power to foreclose access to an expert witness for Mr. Crawford by making proof of insanity a precondition for expert assistance. The dissent said that the Ake violation was not adequately recognized by the state courts and therefore justified habeas relief. Additionally, the dissent relied upon a report and affidavit from a neurologist, who determined that Mr. Crawford had partial epilepsy and was in an epilepsy-related delirium at the time of his offense.

Discussion

The case underscores the high threshold that habeas petitioners must meet to prevail on ineffective assistance of counsel claims under the AEDPA. In order for federal habeas relief to be granted, the state court’s ruling must be not just incorrect but unreasonably so, making it difficult for state prisoners to succeed on post-conviction claims in federal court.

This case also emphasizes the role, as well as potential limitations, of Ake. In Ake, the U.S. Supreme Court mandated that states provide indigent defendants access to expert assistance when asserting an insanity defense. Furthermore, in McWilliams v. Dunn, 582 U.S. 183 (2017), the Court found that, when certain threshold matters are met, Ake requires that the defendant be provided with access to an expert who can effectively assist in the evaluation, preparation, and presentation of a defense. But in this case, there were no violations found with the procedural limitations placed on Ake. It is noteworthy that the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari of this case, which suggests that there were no novel questions of constitutional violations in this case.

As forensic psychiatrists, it is important to complete thorough sanity evaluations for defendants and, if necessary, consult with other medical specialties, such as neurologists, when indicated. If conditions, including neurological conditions, are not considered or missed during evaluations, defendants may have limited legal recourse in post-conviction settings. It is possible that concerns that are initially overlooked may not be considered again in the future for a defendant’s insanity defense. This highlights the importance of conducting timely, well documented assessments, communicating clearly with counsel regarding any indications of brain dysfunction or psychiatric instability that warrant further testing, and assisting counsel in understanding when to file a motion for additional expert assistance.