Request for funding for an expert witness; People v Kennedy; MRE 702

Concluding that the trial court prevented juvenile respondent-MNB “from presenting a meaningful defense by denying her request for funding for an expert witness[,]” the court reversed her misdemeanor assault and battery conviction and remanded. MNB argued “that an expert witness would have assisted her in establishing her self-defense claim by explaining the social context of her fight with LC, particularly as it regards LC’s racially derogatory comments and how [they] could have made MNB feel more fearful, thereby justifying her use of force.” The court applied the Kennedy standard to the facts of this case. It noted that “the Kennedy standard does not require an indigent defendant to pass the MRE 702 test for admissibility of expert testimony. Instead, the threshold for obtaining a court-appointed expert at public expense involves a review to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial under constitutional standards.” In this case, the trial “court failed to consider MNB’s request for an expert under the Kennedy standard, and instead erroneously relied on MRE 702 to deny as inadmissible [her] request for an expert qualified to testify about racism’s effect on MNB’s behavior.” In addition, it “erroneously faulted defense counsel for failing to give the name of a specific prospective expert witness.” The court held that the “trial court erred to the extent that it weighed defense counsel’s failure to locate and present a specific witness against MNB.” Further, it concluded that “MNB met her burden to show entitlement to funding for an expert witness.” It found that it was “important to note that an indigent defendant who seeks funding for an expert does not need to show that they cannot present a defense at all without the aid of expert testimony. Rather, the defendant must show that expert testimony would assist the defense and that the trial would be rendered fundamentally unfair without it.” In this case, “MNB established that LC’s habit of bullying her based on racial characteristics and calling her racial slurs played a major role in the conflict between them and exacerbated MNB’s response to LC’s physical attack against her. Under the circumstances, expert testimony on race and racism was key to crafting the defense and could have helped the jury better understand the dynamics at play in what may have otherwise appeared to be a run-of-the-mill schoolyard fight. Denial of an expert under the circumstances, where MNB met her burden under Kennedy, ‘result[ed] in a fundamentally unfair trial.’” Thus, MNB was entitled to a new trial.