Reported / Citable
Background
Steven Blake Aldrich was charged by criminal complaint on April 17, 2025, with possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). A preliminary and detention hearing was set for May 9, 2025.
Aldrich moved for a psychiatric evaluation, asserting reasonable cause to believe he might have a mental illness or defect affecting both his competency to stand trial and his mental state at the time of the alleged offense. The motion did not cite binding authority, was neither ex parte nor sealed, and included a proposed order relying on Texas law and directing Travis County to pay for an expert.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower denied the motion without prejudice. The court found the nature of Aldrich’s request unclear.
To the extent Aldrich sought appointment of a mental-health expert, the court held that he had not shown entitlement to government-funded expert assistance. Aldrich had retained counsel and offered no evidence that he was financially unable to obtain expert services himself. The court cited United States v. Jackson, 578 F.2d 1162, 1163 (5th Cir. 1978), for the principle that expert assistance at government expense may properly be denied where the record shows the defendant can provide his own experts.
Key Takeaways
- A request for a psychiatric evaluation must clearly identify the legal basis and type of relief sought.
- A represented defendant seeking government-funded expert services must show financial inability to obtain the services independently.
- The denial was without prejudice, leaving Aldrich able to file a renewed, properly supported request.
Why It Matters
The order distinguishes assertions about competency or sanity from a sufficient showing for court-funded mental-health expertise. Defense counsel should clearly ground such a request in applicable federal authority and support any claim that expert services are financially necessary.