by
Astrid Fiano, DOTmed News Writer | May 04, 2009
Holland v. State, 705 So. 2d 307 (Supreme Court 1997) In a death penalty case on appeal, the appellant argued the trial court was in error for refusing a Computer Assisted Tomography (CAT) scan and a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan to determine brain damage. The court held that while a neurological examination would have been "helpful" for mitigation, the defendant didn't meet the established criteria for proving a substantial need for court to approve funds for such an expert.
Back to HCB News
