State v. White — concurring

Summary

The concurrence agrees that the record is inadequate to review the defendant’s constitutional claim for public funding of a DNA expert and agrees with the majority’s resolution of the evidentiary issue. It nevertheless expresses concern that late disclosure by the prosecution, uncertainty about public funding, and possible loss of privately selected counsel may collectively burden an indigent defendant’s rights. The concurrence urges state actors to establish a clear process allowing defendants to seek commission funding and then obtain judicial review of any denial.