IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF IRWIN COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
STATE OF GEORGIA, )
)
y ) CRIMINAL ACTION
) CASE NO. 2017CR027
RYAN ALEXANDER DUKE, —_)
)
Defendant, 5
= J
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR FUNDS FOR EXPERT ASS)
STANCE AND FOR
AN ORDER REQUIRING THE STATE TO PROVIDE THESE FUNDS
COMES NOW Defendant, Ryan Duke (“Mr. Duke” or “Defendant”), in the
above-styled case, by and through his undersigned counsel, and pursuant to the Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 USS.
68, 105 $. Ct. 1087, 84 L. Bd, 2d 53 (1985), Lindsey v. State, 254 Ga. 444, 330 S.E.2d
563 (1985); Thornton v. State, 255 Ga. 434, 339 S.E.2d 240 (1986), Dingler v. State, 281
Ga. App. 721, 637 8.6.24 120 (2006), and the Georgia Constitution, hereby respectfully
moves this Honorable Court for an Order authorizing the release of funds in the amount
of $1,500.00 for defense counsel to retain an undisclosed expert in the field of false
confessions, whose serviees are necessary for defense counsel to effectively defend
against the charges levied against Mr. Duke in the above-styled indietment.!
Mr, Duke further moves the Court, pursuant to Brooks v. State, 259 Ga. 562
(1989) to review this motion on the prior argument of counsel in a sealed proceeding
where defense strategies may have been revealed, In further support of this motion, Mr.
Duke shows the Court further as follows:
1, Defendant previously moved the Court, ex parte, for an Order requiring Irwin County
to supply said funds. Based on the Court’s Order, Defendant is now re-submitting this
request but instead seeking an Order requiring the State of Georgia fund this defense.INTRODUCTIO!
AND FACTUAL BACKGROI
This is a murder case where the body of the victim, Tara Grinstead, has never
been located. Therefore, the importance of other evidence and testimony will be
heightened greatly. Mr, Duke gave an oral statement and a brief written statement fo the
Georgia Bureau of Investigation (“GBI”) in February of 2017, more than 11 years after
Ms. Grinstead went missing in October of 2005, Mr. Duke believes the State of Georgia
(“State”) will attempt to use these statements against Mr. Duke at trial, Mr. Duke
believes that the
sumstances surrounding his statement to the GBI necessitate a review
by a qualified expert in the field of false confessions and that expert testimony is required
in order for Mr. Duke to have # full and fair opportunity to present his defense.
Mr. Duke is indigent and previously the public defender for the Tift Judicial
Circuit represented him in this matter, Undersigned counsel are privately retained and
representing Defendant on a pro bono basis. Neither Mr. Duke nor his family have the
financial means or ability to employ the assistance of an expert in the field of false
confessions, an expert whom is necessary and vital to Mr. Duke’s defense, and whom
undersigned counsel would retain separately if funds were available. For these and the
following reasons, Mr. Duke respectfully requests that the Court grant the instant motion,
ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY.
Where a sufficient showing of need is made, a defendant is entitled to expert
assistance at the expense of the state so that he may have “a fair opportunity to present
his defense” and “the opportunity to participate meaningfully in a judicial proceeding in
which his liberty is at stake.” Brooks v. State, 259 Ga, 562, 385 S.B.2d 81 (1989)(quoting
Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 US. 68, 76, 105 S. Ct. 1087, 84 L. Ed. 2d 53 (1985), See
|also Thornton v. State, 255 Ga. 434, 339 S.E.2d 240 (1986). An accused is entitled to an
independent expert and one who will help the accused “marshall his defense.” See Ake,
470 USS, 68, 105 8. Ct. 1087, 84 L. Ed, 2d 53 (1985).
In the instant case, following counsel’s initial and preliminary review of the law
enforcement files, there is little reliable forensic evidence linking Mr. Duke to Ms.
Grinstead or the alleged crime scene, For instance, there is no forensic evidence linking
Mr. Duke to Ms. Grinstead’s car or the inside of her home, the alleged crime scene.
‘There is no forensic evidence linking Mr. Duke to the alleged site where Ms. Grinstead’s
body was taken, There is no forensic evidence reflecting that Ms. Grinstead was present
in any vehiele driven by Mr. Duke during the time in question, ‘The primary evidence the
State will use to seek fo convict Mr. Duke is his statement(s) given to the Georgia Bureau
of Investigation (“GBI”), which he gave afier Bo Dukes contacted him on Facebook in an
attempt to entrap him into confessing to this crime. Mr. Duke’s statements, therefore,
take on incredible significance, and, in turn, his al
ty to challenge the statements takes
on a constitutional si
ignificance.
‘Additionally, Mr. Duke was under the influence of narcotics when he gave this
alleged “confession” to the GBI. The veracity of his statement is undercut by the
influence that these nareoties had on his mental state as well as significant inconsistencies
between his alleged “confession” and the purported facts of this case.
False confessions occur at an alarmingly high rate.” In a 1987 study, they were
found to be the third leading cause of wrongful conviction but in a 2003 study, they were
¢ generally Gisli Gudjonsson, The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions: A
ndbook (2003); Saul Kassin & Lawrence Wrightsman, Confessions in the
Courtroom (1993); Richard Leo, Police Interrogation and American hustice (2008);
gu
{
I