David Miller v. Roland Colson, 694 F.3d 691

Miller was convicted of first-degree murder in 1982 and sentenced to death; conviction affirmed on direct appeal; he raised an Ake-based claim for independent psychiatric assistance and a challenge to jury instructions; district court denied habeas petition under AEDPA; the state court records include pretrial psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Gee and later denial of a second psychiatrist request; trial included a neutral psychiatrist's testimony and evidence suggesting malice and intoxication arguments; the Tennessee courts addressed the guilt phase issues and later post-conviction challenges; the federal district court denied habeas relief, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding Ake did not require independent assistance and the malice instruction error was harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ake established a due process right to psychiatric assistance for Miller	Miller argues Ake requires independent psychiatric aid	State contends Ake not clearly established law for this pre-Ake adjudication and neutral aid suffices	No; Ake not clearly established at the time; decision affirmed on this ground
Whether, even if Ake applies, Miller had a right to an independent psychiatrist rather than neutral aid	Independent expert necessary for a fair defense	Neutral psychiatric aid sufficient under existing precedent	No; under AEDPA, state court reasonable in limiting to neutral aid; no clearly established right to independent expert
Whether the Sandstrom error in the malice instruction was harmless	Instruction violated due process by presuming malice	Evidence supported malice and intoxication defenses; harmless under due process	Harmless error; the instruction did not render the trial outcome unreliable
Whether the state court’s harmless-error review was objectively unreasonable under AEDPA	State court erred in applying harmlessness standards	State court applied correct standard; no unreasonable application	No; district court’s application affirmed

Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (Supreme Court, 1985) (right to psychiatric assistance when defense access is necessary; whether independent was not definitively resolved by Ake)
Granville v. Lynaugh, 881 F.2d 185 (5th Cir. 1989) (neutral psychiatrist may satisfy Ake in some circuits; unresolved split)
Powell v. Collins, 332 F.3d 376 (6th Cir. 2003) (indigent defendant's psychiatric assistance may require independent expert in some circumstances)
Houston v. Dutton, 50 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 1995) (Sandstrom error may be harmful; not automatically harmless)
Caldwell v. Bell, 288 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2002) (presumption-of-malice instruction can be harmful; may be nonharmless in context)
Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (Supreme Court, 1979) (erroneous presumption on malice; central to improper instruction issue)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 2000) (AEDPA clearly established law; framework for applying Supreme Court precedents)