White v. Payne, 332 S.W.3d 45

White, a death row inmate, seeks a writ of prohibition to stop a KCPC mental retardation evaluation ordered by Special Judge Payne.
White claims he is mentally retarded under Atkins and argues the KCPC evaluation is not statutorily authorized.
Historically, Judge Paisley ordered up to $5,000 for a private mental health evaluation, which this Court later found to be abuse of discretion.
On remand, Judge Payne held KCPC capable of conducting White's evaluation under KRS 532.130 and ordered White to submit for the KCPC proceedings.
White argues Mills v. Messer requires state-funded expert assistance and that funding must be provided or the KCPC evaluation should be precluded.
The Court denies White’s writ, concluding no irreparable injury or lack of redressability justifies prohibition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether KCPC evaluation is legally permissible.	White argues KCPC is not authorized under statutes and prior rulings.	Payne concluded KCPC could provide a competent evaluation under KRS 532.130.	KCPC evaluation permitted; Payne complied with statutory framework.
Whether Mills standard for funding applies to post-conviction expert funding.	White contends Mills requires state funds for an expert if reasonably necessary.	Court should apply Mills standard to determine necessity for private funding.	Threshold application of Mills standard; if reasonably necessary, fund; otherwise KCPC proceeds.
Whether White demonstrates irreparable injury warranting prohibition.	White asserts irreparable, constitutional harm from KCPC evaluation and disclosure of communications.	No irreparable harm shown; any issues are redressable on appeal.	No irreparable injury; prohibition denied.
Whether constitutional concerns about confidentiality and Fifth Amendment rights are redressable on appeal.	White claims KCPC threatens confidential communications and self-incrimination.	Safeguards can mitigate concerns; issues are reviewable on appeal.	Constitutional concerns are redressable by appeal; prohibition denied.

Paisley v. Commonwealth, 201 S.W.3d 34 (Ky. 2006) (abuse of discretion to fund private psychologist without impracticality showing)
Mills v. Messer, 268 S.W.3d 366 (Ky. 2008) (state funds for expert testimony when reasonably necessary)
Bowling v. Commonwealth, 163 S.W.3d 361 (Ky. 2005) (doubt enough to entitle an evidentiary hearing on mental retardation claim)
Newell Enterprises, Inc. v. Bowling, 158 S.W.3d 750 (Ky. 2005) (extraordinary remedy of prohibition requires irreparable harm)
St. Luke Hospitals, Inc. v. Kopowski, 160 S.W.3d 771 (Ky. 2005) (writs of prohibition: irreparable harm and lack of remedy by appeal)
Harrod v. Meigs, 340 S.W.2d 601 (Ky. 1960) (appellate remedy available; prohibition not warranted by constitutional questions alone)
Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314 (U.S. 1999) (no privilege against self-incrimination when no further consequences)