Ake v. Oklahoma

Summary

The Supreme Court held that when an indigent defendant makes a preliminary showing that his sanity at the time of the offense is likely to be a significant factor, the Fourteenth Amendment’s due‑process guarantee requires the State to provide access to a competent psychiatrist, and it reversed and remanded for a new trial; the Court also concluded that the Oklahoma appellate court’s reliance on a state‑law waiver rule did not constitute an independent ground precluding federal review.