The following excerpt is from United States v. Pete, 819 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2016):
For example, United States v. Hartfield, 513 F.2d 254 (9th Cir.1975), ruled that the defendant was prejudiced by lack of access to an expert whom the defendant requested to examine the defendant's mental status, hoping that the examination would bear fruit as a defense to the crimes charged. Hartfield did not first have to demonstrate what the expert would have concluded. See id. at 258 ; United States v. Bass, 477 F.2d 723 (9th Cir.1973).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.