Adams v. Wyoming Department of Corrections: Establishing the Ake Threshold for Expert Assistance

Introduction

In Adams v. Wyoming Department of Corrections, 10th Cir. No. 24-8039 (May 19, 2025), Jett Garriott Adams challenged his Wyoming convictions on federal habeas review, claiming violation of his due process rights under Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985). Adams had instigated two high-speed chases and shootouts with law-enforcement officers following a speeding stop. He pled not guilty by reason of mental illness (NGMI). After a bench trial and conflicting expert reports, the state court rejected his insanity plea and denied funding for a second examination. Adams was convicted on nine counts, including attempted first-degree murder, and sentenced to life without parole. He then filed a pro se § 2254 petition, asserting that the state court’s refusal to appoint a mental-health expert under Ake deprived him of a fair trial. The district court found an Ake violation but held it harmless. The 10th Circuit affirmed on the alternative ground that Adams never made the required Ake threshold showing.

Summary of the Judgment

The 10th Circuit held, de novo, that Adams failed to demonstrate a genuine, threshold need for expert assistance under Ake. Although Adams pled NGMI and underwent one court-ordered evaluation, neither the plea nor the report created a “close question” about his sanity at the time of the offense. Key findings include:

The mere entry of an NGMI plea does not automatically trigger the right to a state-funded expert.
Neither Dr. Wilkinson’s NGMI evaluation (finding Adams legally sane) nor Dr. Murdock’s competency report (finding him fit for trial) suggested a substantial doubt about Adams’s sanity when the crimes occurred.
Adams’s pre-trial behavior and filings demonstrated coherent legal and factual understanding, undermining any claim of gross impairment.
Because Adams never made a factual showing that insanity was a “fairly debatable” issue, the trial court did not err in denying additional expert funding.

Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of habeas relief without reaching whether Ake errors are reviewed for harmlessness.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Ake v. Oklahoma (470 U.S. 68): Holds that when sanity is a “significant factor” at trial, due process requires access to a state-provided psychiatrist to assist the defense.
Caldwell v. Mississippi (472 U.S. 320): Clarifies that defendants must make more than “undeveloped assertions” to receive expert assistance.
Cartwright v. Maynard (802 F.2d 1203): Rejects the notion that an insanity plea alone suffices for Ake relief.
Volson v. Blackburn (794 F.2d 173): Emphasizes the need for a factual showing that the defendant’s mental state is genuinely at issue.
Castro v. Oklahoma (71 F.3d 1502): Requires that the threshold issue of sanity be “fairly debatable” and genuinely in doubt.
Rogers v. Gibson (173 F.3d 1278): Directs courts to review the record available at the time of the funding request.
James v. Gibson (211 F.3d 543): Holds that prior neurological dysfunction diagnoses, absent evidence of incapacity at the crime’s moment, do not trigger Ake.

Legal Reasoning

The panel applied Ake’s six “illustrative” factors, concluding that Adams satisfied at most two (he pled NGMI and bore the burden of proof on insanity), but failed to show the other four. In particular:

No evidence of pretrial “bizarre” behavior prompted competency examinations.
Dr. Murdock found Adams competent to stand trial, and did not recommend commitment or antipsychotic medication.
Dr. Wilkinson’s NGMI evaluation expressly found Adams “legally sane” at the time of the shootings.
Neither evaluator described a longstanding or severe psychosis that grossly impaired Adams’s capacity to appreciate wrongfulness or conform conduct to the law.
Adams’s coherent legal filings and court appearances further undercut any claim of incapacity.

Under Ake and its progeny, defendants must make a “clear and genuine” showing that sanity is a close question before receiving state-funded mental-health assistance. Adams did not clear this threshold.

Impact

This decision clarifies and narrows the scope of Ake by underscoring that:

Insanity pleas alone do not trigger expert-assistance rights; defense counsel must present factual support that sanity is genuinely in doubt.
Court-ordered sanity screenings that conclude legal sanity weigh against a finding of “good cause.”
Trial judges may deny additional expert funding when existing reports and the record do not reveal a substantial question of mental incapacity at the time of the offense.

Future litigants must therefore assemble concrete medical, behavioral, or testimonial evidence showing substantial doubt about their mental state before demanding a state-provided expert.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Illness (NGMI): A Wyoming statutory defense excusing criminal liability if, due to severe mental illness, the defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate wrongfulness or conform conduct to law.
Ake v. Oklahoma Right: The due process right requiring state-provided psychiatric assistance when a defendant’s sanity at the time of the offense is a “significant factor” and that issue is genuinely in doubt.
Threshold Showing: The initial requirement under Ake that a defendant present more than speculative assertions—concrete facts or expert observations—demonstrating sanity was a close question.
Harmless‐Error Doctrine: A rule that certain trial errors can be excused if the reviewing court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. (Not addressed substantively here.)
AEDPA Deference: The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act standard that requires federal habeas courts to defer to state‐court decisions unless they unreasonably apply clearly established Supreme Court law. (Not applied because Wyoming did not address the Ake claim on the merits.)

Conclusion

Adams v. Wyoming Department of Corrections refines the application of Ake v. Oklahoma by emphasizing that a defendant who pleads insanity must present a “clear and genuine” factual showing of mental‐state doubts before securing state‐funded expert assistance. Mere assertion of a mental‐illness defense or a single evaluator’s diagnosis of depression does not satisfy the threshold. This decision will guide trial courts in rigorously evaluating Ake requests and instruct defense counsel to marshal concrete evidence when mental capacity at the time of the offense is at issue.