United States v. Arthurton, 201600228

Appellant was convicted by a general court-martial of one specification of attempted sexual assault of a child, two specifications of attempted sexual abuse of a child, and one specification of making a false official statement under Articles 80 and 107, UCMJ.
Sentence: 36 months’ confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to E-1, dishonorable discharge; convening authority approved.
Defense moved to compel a forensic psychology expert to assist in entrapment defenses and to rebut claims of pedophilia/predisposition during sentencing.
From Aug–Nov 2014 the appellant texted with an undercover agent he believed to be a 15-year-old girl; he described graphic sexual topics and potential sexual activity.
In Jan 2015 the appellant communicated with another undercover agent he believed to be a 14-year-old girl; he arranged to meet, discussed bringing an underage friend, and was apprehended with a condom in his pocket.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the denial of expert forensic-psychology assistance was an abuse of discretion	Appellant argues need for testing entrapment and predisposition to sexual misconduct	Judge correctly found no necessity or specificity for expert help	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed

United States v. Lloyd, 69 M.J. 95 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review for expert-assistance rulings)
United States v. Bresnahan, 62 M.J. 137 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (burden on defense to show need and why experts are unavailable)
United States v. Freeman, 65 M.J. 451 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (expert assistance required for adequate defense)
United States v. Frey, 73 M.J. 245 (C.A.A.F. 2014) (government argument limits without defense expert testimony)
United States v. Kelly, 39 M.J. 235 (C.A.A.F. 1994) (defense responsibility to educate themselves on issues)