STATE v. LISHAN WANG, SC 19178

Judicial District of New Haven

 Criminal; Whether an Indigent Defendant who is Self-Represented is Constitutionally Entitled to Funding for the Purpose of Retaining an Investigator and Experts Whose Services are Reasonably Necessary to Present a Defense.  The defendant was charged with murder and various weapons offenses.  He was later found to be indigent, and a public defender was appointed to represent him.  Thereafter, he filed a motion requesting that he be permitted to represent himself during the criminal proceedings.  The trial court granted the motion, and, accordingly, the defendant began to represent himself with the assistance of stand-by counsel from the office of the public defender.  The defendant subsequently asked the court to order that he be provided with funding so that he could retain an investigator and various experts.  He maintained that he was constitutionally entitled to such funding so that he could mount a proper defense to the pending criminal charges.  Noting that the office of the public defender had declined to provide such funding and that the matter could not proceed to trial until the defendant has been afforded his constitutional right to present a defense, the trial court, with the consent of the parties, reserved the following questions for the consideration and advice of the Supreme Court pursuant to General Statutes § 52-235: “1. Is an indigent defendant who qualifies for public defender assistance, but who has waived the right to counsel and represents himself with the assistance of stand-by counsel, constitutionally entitled to public defender or other public funds to secure the assistance of an investigator and/or experts whose services are reasonably necessary to formulate and present a defense?  2. If the answer to question one (1) above is in the affirmative, does the trial court retain the discretion to grant or deny authorization for public expenditure for any such expert witness fee based upon the trial court’s threshold determination as to the relevance of the expert’s potential testimony?  3. If the answer to question one (1) above is in the affirmative, should public funds come from the State of Connecticut’s Office of the Public Defender?  4. If the answer to question three (3) above is in the negative, should public funds come from the Connecticut Judicial Branch?”