Whether the 'basic tools of an adequate defense' include expert assistance in 'evaluation, preparation, and presentation' of a defense at sentencing premised on the age of the juvenile defendant and where the court and the State have put his mental state at issue

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court has long held that the constitution guarantees the “basic tools of an adequate defense” for the rich and indigent alike. Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 227 (1971). The Court recently reaffirmed this protection includes expert assistance in “evaluation, preparation, and presentation” of the defense where the defendant’s “mental condition’. . . was ‘relevant to . . . the punishment he might suffer’... [and] that ‘mental condition,’ ze. his ‘sanity at the time of the offense,’ was ‘seriously in question.” McWilliams v. Dunn, 137 S. Ct. 1790, 1798 (2017) quoting Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 70, 83 (1985). Petitioner here sought expert assistance for the preparation of his sentencing proceedings related to a juvenile offense, for which he faced potential death in prison. The trial court denied his request and appointed its own psychological expert to answer several questions concerning his mental health. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the denial of a defense expert in psychology on the sole ground that petitioner’s “sanity” was not at issue, App. 264a, and, when given the opportunity in this case, declined to reconsider its holding. App. 28a This petition presents the following question: whether the “basic tools of an adequate defense” include expert assistance in “evaluation, preparation, and presentation” of a defense at sentencing premised on the age of the juvenile defendant and where the court and the State have put his mental state at issue. Ake, 470 U.S. at 77, 83 quoting Britt, 404 U.S. at 227. i