Do this Court's decisions in Ake v. Oklahoma and McWilliams v. Dunn require the appointment of a second insanity expert for an indigent defendant where the defendant's first insanity expert provided a 'borderline' opinion that the defendant was sane and advised that a second opinion be sought?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. Do this Court’s decisions in Ake v. Oklahoma and McWilliams v. Dunn require the appointment of a second insanity expert for an indigent defendant where the defendant’s first insanity expert provided a “borderline” opinion that the defendant was sane and advised that a second opinion be sought? II. Does Illinois’s statutory scheme creating grossly imbalanced rights to the appointment of insanity experts for prosecutors and indigent defendants violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? i