Ethics Flashcards
What is the dual role issue in Ake v. OK?
Handbook authors disagree with Ake that we can serve as both a member of the legal team (consultant) and testimonial expert. Ake said even if our opinions are unfavorable to the defendant, we should do what we can to help them (e.g., identify mitigation strategies, help ID questions to expect from the State)
What are the steps in ethical decision making per Keith-Spiegel and Koocher’s model?
(1) Describe/ID the dilemma.
(2) ID those who are likely to be impacted by the decision.
(3) Specify the considerations owed and basis for each.
(4) List applicable ethical standards or practice guidelines.
(5) Outline alternative actions for each issue, and include consequences and benefits.
(6) Outline changes in circumstance that would cause you to choose a different actions.
(7) ID actions to take in the event of unanticipated consequences or outcome was more serious than anticipated.
What is the principle behind the 5th amendment?
Privilege against self-incrimination. Accused should not be forced to provide evidence against themselves.
Buchanan v. Kentucky (1987)
When a defendant raises a MSO defense, prosecution can use comp evals or prior psych evals to rebut mental state evidence. Doesn’t implicate 5th and 6th amendment violations like Estelle v. Smith.
How does the 5th amendment impose limits on the State’s access to MSO?
WHEN the state can compel an MSO eval, when the state may USE the results of such eval, and when the state may OBTAIN access to the results
Kansas v. Cheever (2013)
5th amendment protection is waived even when the defense raise raised is voluntary intoxication rather than a mental disorder (i.e., anytime the defense uses MH professionals at trial or sentencing, the prosecution is allowed access to the results of any evaluation for rebuttal)
In re Gault
The “gault/goal” of juvie quasi-criminal proceedings should be to reflect the constitutional rights afforded in adults ones. (e.g., 5th amendment)
What are the 5th amendment issues in Lessard v. Schmidt (1972)?
A defendant’s statements during a commitment hearing could be incriminating (lead to invol. hosp) and compelled (if they didn’t know right to remain silent). The proceeding may result in loss of 14th - liberty.
What did the court rule about 5th amendment issues in Allen v. Illinois (1986)?
SVP commitment was not a criminal proceeding, and focuses on treatment (not punishment). Thus, the state can constitutionally compel the individual to undergo a dangerousness eval if the results will only be used as basis for commitment (this contradicts Gault, even tho the S.O. is looking at loss of liberty as well).
What are the two principles behind the 6th amendment?
(1) Right to PRESENCE of counsel. (2) Right to EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE of counsel.
Most courts have held that defendants don’t have a right to counsel during the actual evaluation (e.g., could disrupt the eval per Estelle v. Smith).
What are 3 issues to consider in having a 3rd party (e.g., attorney) in the interview room?
(1) It can affect what the evaluee shares with us, (2) can threaten the validity of psych testing results when it wasn’t normed with a 3rd party, and (3) can threaten security of some tests.
United States ex rel. Edney v. Smith (1976)
Once that defense has raised a MSO defense, State should have access to experts the defendant has decided not to use. Prevents the defense from shopping and only allowing defense-friendly experts in the courtroom, and keeping the opinions of unfriendly ones in the dark.
United States v. Alvarez
Defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel is negatively impacted when the State is permitted to use their discarded experts.
Prosecution can get their own expert anyway, but it might give them less access to fresh data if the defense can gag experts following consultation about a defense-unfavorable conclusion.
What should a defense-retained evaluator do if the evaluee shares info about child abuse?
Attorney-client privilege applies, but we should also consider our ethical ethical obligations.
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California
Court found that we have a duty to warn (take preventative measures) if the person is dangerous. We have a special relationship to the potential victim of a patient. As evaluators, we should notify a potential victim if specifically identified, perhaps notify the corut or custodial agency, or consider commitment.
