Lowe v. State
2013 Miss. LEXIS 648
| Miss. | 2013Background
- John B. Lowe was indicted on five counts of child exploitation after sexually explicit images/videos of children were found on a laptop allegedly belonging to him; the State presented no eyewitness who saw Lowe download the files.
- The State’s case depended principally on its computer-forensics expert (Tom Thomas), who testified the files were saved under Lowe’s user name/password and that digital evidence pointed to Lowe, though he acknowledged others could have placed or downloaded the files.
- Lowe is indigent; he repeatedly requested court funds for a defense computer-forensics expert to examine the hard drive, determine download timing and user credentials, and to prepare to rebut the State expert.
- The trial court denied funding for a defense expert (after requiring counsel to consult the State’s expert), and Lowe proceeded to trial without an independent examiner; he was convicted on all counts and sentenced to life.
- The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed, holding that denial of expert funding here rendered the trial fundamentally unfair and ordering a new trial with funded expert assistance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lowe) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court must provide state-funded expert assistance to an indigent defendant when the State relies primarily on expert testimony to connect the defendant to the crime | Lowe: denial of funds prevented preparation of an adequate defense; an independent forensic expert was a necessary raw material to rebut State expert | State: no bright-line rule; Lowe could interview and cross-examine State’s expert; evidence against Lowe was overwhelming without needing a defense expert | Court: Fund defense expert — when State’s case rests on expert opinion alone, denying funding can make trial fundamentally unfair; reversed and remanded for new trial with funds for a forensics expert |
| Whether counsel could adequately prepare and cross-examine the State’s expert without a defense expert | Lowe: counsel lacked technical knowledge to test the State expert’s methods/opinions; needed an expert to know what questions to ask | State: counsel met with and cross-examined State expert; pretrial access sufficed | Court: Requiring counsel to rely on pretrial interview with State’s expert is inadequate; a defense expert is needed to know meaningful challenges/questions |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient/overwhelming without a defense expert | Lowe: contested that others had access and someone else could have downloaded files; needed expert to prove alternative theories | State: emphasized digital fingerprints, user account, Wi‑Fi availability, and circumstantial evidence of Lowe’s presence at job site | Court: Much of the “overwhelming” evidence was expert opinion; when State’s link is essentially expert-driven, a defense expert’s probable value is high |
| Remedy for denial of expert funding | Lowe: new trial with court-funded forensic expert | State: conviction should stand | Court: Reversed conviction; remanded for new trial and ordered funding of a computer-forensics expert for Lowe |
Key Cases Cited
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (U.S. 1985) (due process may require state-funded expert assistance where it is a basic tool of an adequate defense)
- Fisher v. City of Eupora, 587 So.2d 878 (Miss. 1991) (trial court must provide expert assistance when denial renders trial fundamentally unfair)
- Richardson v. State, 767 So.2d 195 (Miss. 2000) (substantial-need standard and case-by-case review for providing state-funded experts)
- King v. State, 960 So.2d 413 (Miss. 2007) (no bright-line entitlement to a defense expert; determination is fact-specific)