54 F.4th 950
6th Cir.2022Background
- In July 2013 Bergman drove a Ford F-350 across the center line and collided head-on with a smaller truck, killing its two occupants; she survived and was charged with multiple counts including second-degree murder.
- Hospital and earlier arrest blood tests showed therapeutic-level oxycodone, carisoprodol (Soma), and likely amphetamine; Dr. Michele Glinn (state toxicologist) testified the drugs could impair driving and cited Bergman’s multiple prior drug-related driving incidents.
- Defense counsel asked the trial court for a state-funded toxicologist to (a) explain/test the state lab results and (b) retest preserved blood samples; the trial court denied the request (permitting a consultant only if counsel later specified a need).
- A jury convicted Bergman on all counts; the Michigan appellate court denied her Ake-based Due Process claim, finding she failed to show a sufficient nexus/need for a defense toxicologist.
- On federal habeas review under AEDPA, the district court found fairness concerns but denied relief because the Supreme Court has not clearly extended Ake beyond psychiatrists; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding Supreme Court precedent unclear and the state-court decision not unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ake requires a state-funded toxicologist for an indigent defendant | Bergman: Ake entitles indigent defendants to expert assistance (toxicologist) to present a meaningful defense and rebut state toxicology evidence | State: Ake’s holding is limited to psychiatrists; Supreme Court has not clearly extended it to non-psychiatric experts; trial court permissibly found no sufficient need | Held: No; Supreme Court has not clearly established a right to non-psychiatric experts under Ake, so state court decision was not an unreasonable application of federal law |
| Whether Michigan court unreasonably applied clearly established law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) | Bergman: Michigan misapplied Ake and related precedents and should have ordered the expert | State: AEDPA requires deference; petitioner must show an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law | Held: Denied — petitioner failed to meet AEDPA’s high bar; Ake’s extension to other experts is unclear, so fairminded disagreement exists |
| Whether Michigan court unreasonably determined facts under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) | Bergman: Appellate court ignored or misstated counsel’s explanatory facts about why an expert was needed | State: The court resolved a mixed legal-factual question (nexus under Ake), so review is under § 2254(d)(1), not § 2254(d)(2) | Held: Denied — the question was an application-of-law-to-fact (mixed) issue properly reviewed under § 2254(d)(1); no unreasonable factual finding shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) (Due Process requires state-provided psychiatrist when insanity defense is credible)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (balancing test for procedural protections)
- Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437 (1992) (urges historical/fundamental-rights test over Mathews in criminal context and notes Ake’s limited scope)
- Woodall v. Alabama, 572 U.S. 415 (2014) (dicta does not constitute clearly established law under AEDPA)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA requires avoidance of rulings that could be subject to fairminded disagreement)
- Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (2004) (state-court leeway where Supreme Court precedent unclear)
- Lopez v. Smith, 574 U.S. 1 (2014) (courts must not recast narrow holdings into broad rules at a high level of generality)