context: The trial court denied the motion and began the trial immediately. The court of appeals reversed and concluded that "Walker's right to a fair trial was violated because his counsel was deprived of an adequate opportunity to determine the existence of a substantial insanity defense."
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 633 F.2d 1146, 1150
citation_a.parenthetical: denial of fair trial to refuse requested six-hour continuance to enable defense psychiatric expert to appear and testify
citation_a.sentence: Id. at 1194; see also Hicks v. Wainwright, 633 F.2d 1146, 1150 (5th Cir.1981) (denial of fair trial to refuse requested six-hour continuance to enable defense psychiatric expert to appear and testify).
citation_b.signal: but see
citation_b.parenthetical: not an abuse of discretion to deny continuance to prepare insanity defense because counsel was appointed three months before trial and defendant failed to show even "the mere possibility of prejudice"
citation_b.sentence: But see Hutchins v. Garrison, 724 F.2d 1425, 1434-35 (4th Cir.1983) (not an abuse of discretion to deny continuance to prepare insanity defense because counsel was appointed three months before trial and defendant failed to show even “the mere possibility of prejudice”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 750, 79 L.Ed.2d 207 (1984).