Whether the Fifth Circuit disregarded this Court's precedent when it required petitioner to show that an expert was 'critical' to his case before funds could be provided

QUESTION PRESENTED Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 3599 to provide federal capital defendants and capital habeas petitioners with an enhanced level of representation in light of the penalty they face. Included in the statute is a provision that allows a capital defendant to obtain investigative, expert, or other services that are “reasonably necessary” for the defendant’s representation. This is not a heavy burden. To meet it, a person requesting funds need not show that the requested service is “reasonably essential” or that it fills a “substantial need.” The question presented is: Whether the Fifth Circuit disregarded this Court’s precedent when it required petitioner to show that an expert was “critical” to his case before funds could be provided. i INTERESTED PARTIES Mr. Snarr’s codefendant, Edgar Garcia, is also a party to the proceedings below. ii