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