Granviel v. Texas

Background

Kenneth Granviel, a defendant in a 1983 capital-murder case, asked the trial court to appoint a mental-health expert to help prepare an insanity defense and to keep the expert’s report confidential from the prosecution. The Texas court instead appointed a “disinterested” psychiatrist whose written report was given to both defense and prosecution under state law. The Fifth Circuit upheld that practice on habeas review, and the Supreme Court denied review of the lower-court decision.

Reasoning

Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, dissented from the denial. He explained that the central question is whether an indigent defendant’s constitutional right to psychiatric assistance is met when the appointed expert must share the examination report with the prosecution. Relying on the Court’s earlier Ake decision, Marshall argued a defendant is entitled to a psychiatrist who functions as part of the defense team, assists in evaluation and trial preparation, and helps with cross-examination — not an examiner who reports to both sides.

Real world impact

Because the Court denied review, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling permitting court-appointed, shared-report experts remains in place in that case. That result may leave some indigent defendants without a confidential defense psychiatrist and allow states to use “disinterested” examiners whose reports are available to prosecutors. The denial is not a full Supreme Court ruling on the merits, and Marshall warned the practice undermines the adversarial protections available to other defendants.

Dissents or concurrances

Marshall urged the Court to grant review and would have ordered a new trial under Ake; he also stated he would vacate the death sentence on broader Eighth Amendment grounds.