From impartial expert to adversary in the wake of Ake.

In deciding Ake v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court held that, when defendants demonstrate that their sanity is likely to be a significant factor at trial, the State must assure them access to a competent psychiatrist who will not only examine them but also render other assistance to the defense. There have been 28 known subsequent decisions in which appellate courts have ruled on the validity of Ake-based claims; in only four did the defendant prevail. The case nonetheless raises issues relative to the proper role of the psychiatric expert. The Supreme Court's decisions, although not introducing a new ethical topic, appear to be favoring a more adversarial posture, at least within certain parameters. I suggest that impartiality, independence, and advocacy need not be mutually exclusive concepts and that some of our traditional beliefs about what part we should play in criminal law may have to be modified and expanded.