requests “by the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, or other person acting on behalf of the defendant”). ¶ 20 Our conclusion that the Victims are not entitled to attend the contemplated ex parte hearing is not affected by this Court’s decision in Apelt, 176 Ariz. at 365, 861 P.2d at 650. There we rejected a defendant’s argument that the trial court erred in refusing to hold an ex parte hearing on a request for expert assistance in a capital ease. Id. The Court noted that there was no Arizona legal authority for such a hearing, that neither due process nor equal protection generally requires ex parte proceedings for such requests, and that the defendant had failed to show any prejudice from the denial of an ex parte procedure. Id. But cf. Ex Parte Moody, 684 So.2d 114, 120 (Ala.1996) (<HOLDING>); Stevens v. Indiana, 770 N.E.2d 739, 759 (Ind.
holding that plaintiffs complaint alleging deprivation of constitutional rights guaranteed under the first and fourteenth amendments was sufficient to invoke the ex parte young exception holding that fifth sixth and fourteenth amendments entitle criminal defendant to ex parte hearing on request for expert assistance holding that the constitution does not entitle a criminal defendant to the effective assistance of an expert witness holding that the sixth amendments guarantee of the assistance of counsel is made obligatory upon the states by the fourteenth amendment holding that the sixth and fourteenth amendments imply the right to selfrepresentation