Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Forensic Psychitatry > General Forensic > Flashcards

General Forensic Flashcards

1
Q

Ganser Syndrome

A
  1. Approximate answers
  2. Clouding of conciousness
  3. Somatic conversion
  4. Hallucinations
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

McKune v. Lile (2002)

A

Sexual Abuse Treatment Programs serve a vital penological purpose, do not violate 5th amendment, OK to use minimal incentives.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

United States v. Georgia (2006)

A

ADA applies to prisons and inmates can sue for money damages under title II of ADA.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Estelle v. Gamble (1976)

A

Definition

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners violated 8th

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Farmer v. Brennan (1994)

A

Definition

set standard of subjective recklessness, i.e. prove that he had knowledge of the situation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Washington v. Harper (1990)

A

medication administration in an emergency, for medical reasons and of limited duration.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Riggens v. Nevada (1992)

A

State must establish need for treatment.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Baxstrom v. Herald (1960)

A

prisoners need same review as other civil commitments to state hospital

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Vitek v. Jones (1980)

A

Definition
transfer to mental hospital from prison requires wrtten notice, adversary hearing, written findings and availability if legal counsel

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

DeShaney v. Winnebago (1989)

A

Definition

State must protect those which have been imprisoned, institutionalized or otherwise restrained.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Civil Rights Act of 1964

A

Title VII: Forbids practices on basis of gender (became legal basis of sexual harassment actions)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Meritor Savings Bank FSB v. Vinson (1986)

A

Hostile work environment actionable. Advances must be unwelcome.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Teresa Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1993)

A
  1. Reasonable person would find it objectionable AND the person subjectively perceived it as such.
  2. Damages are not required
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services (1998)

A

Same sex sexual harassment is actionable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Wyatt v. Stickney

A

patients entitled to:

  1. the least restrictive environment
  2. freedom from unecessary or excessive medication
  3. the right not to be subjected to experimental research without informed consent
  4. the right not to be subjected to lobotomy or ECT without consent and consultation with their counsel
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Rennie v. Klein (1979)

A

Second doctor decision maker OK with appeal to medical director available

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Rogers v. Commissioner (1983)

A

Substituted judgment. A committed mental patient is competent and has the right to make treatment decisions until the patient is adjudicated incompetent by a judge. A judge then decides if the patient would have wanted to consent to antipsychotic medications.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Washington v. Harper (1990)

A

A second physician decision maker is sufficient in a prison setting.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Riggins v. Nevada (1992)

A

State was obligated to establish the need for treatment.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Test of Functional Restrictions

A
  1. Activities of daily living
  2. Social functioning
  3. Concentration, persistence and pace
  4. Deterioration or decompensation in work or work-like setting
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

“Handicapped individual”

A
  1. Has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities
  2. Has a record of having such impairment
  3. Is regarded as having such an impairment by an employer
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

School Board of Nassau County Florida v. Arline (1987)

A

Contagious disease is a physical impairment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Bragdon v. Abbott (1998)

A

HIV is a disability covered by the ADA

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Olmstead v. L.C. (1999)

A

Definition

ADA title II prohibits unjustified sgregation of the mentally ill. Placement is in order when clinically appropriate.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yesky (1999)

A

ADA applies to prisons. Inmates can sue if excluded from programs due to diability (except if they pose a direct threat)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Robinson v. California (1962)

A

Criminalizing status of addiction violates 8th

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Powell v. Texas (1968)

A

Crime of public drunk does not violate 8th

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

North Carolina v. Alford (1970)

A

You can plead guilty while protesting innocence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Montana v. Egelhoff (1996)

A

OK to exclude voluntary intoxication as mitigation of mens rea

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Cruzan v. Director of Health (1990)

A

state has right to require clear and convincing evidence of incompetents wishes to refuse treatment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)

A

No liberty interest in 14th amendment to right to physician assisted suicide

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Vacco v. Quill (1997)

A

physician assisted suicide is not equal to right to refuse treatment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

State v. Hurd (1980)

A

hypnotically refreshed testimony could be admissible on a case by case basis

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Rock v. Arkansas (1987)

A

Law excluding all hypnotic testimony violates rights

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

In Re Gault (1967)

A

Required due process for juveniles. Set stage for civil commitment reform.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Lake v. Cameron (DC Circ 1966)

A

Individualized treatment plans and least restrictive environment.

37
Q

O’Connor v. Donaldson (1975)

A

“the state can’t confine, without more, a non-dangerous, mentally ill person who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself or with the help of family or friends.”

38
Q

Lessard v. Schmidt (Federal District Court 1972)

A

High water mark of protection of liberty interests. Same rights as criminal suspect.

39
Q

Addington v. Texas (1979)

A

Clear and convincing evidence is minimum for commitment.

40
Q

Zinermon v. Burch (1990)

A

OK for states to require a pt be competent to sign in voluntarily.

41
Q

Jones v. United States (1983)

A

Commitment of NGRI pt requires only preponderance. Burden is on aquittee to prive no longer ill or dangerous.

42
Q

Foucha v. Louisiana (1992)

A

NGRI aquittee who is dangerous but no longer mentally ill cannot be held.

43
Q

Dusky v. US (1960)

A

Defendant must have sufficient present ability to consult with lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.”

44
Q

Wilson v. US (1968)

A

Amnesia per se does not equal incompetence.

45
Q

Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996)

A

Definition

Set evidence standard for CST at preponderance

46
Q

Jackson v. Indiana (1972)

A

Inconpetent defendants cannot be held in a mental institution longer than a reasonable period of time ot determine if there is a substantial probabilty of restoration.

47
Q

Godinez v. Moran (1993)

A

Competence to pled guilty is no higher than competence to stand trial.

48
Q

Indiana v. Edwards (2008)

A

Court may limit right to represent self if mentally ill. Pro se competency stnadard is higher than CST.

49
Q

Colorado v. Connelly (1986)

A

Defendant had command hallucinations to confess. A confession is voluntary unless there is police coercion.

50
Q

Panetti v. Quarterman (2007)

A

Definition
individuals with mentall illness should be allowed to present expert testimony related to their competence to be executed.

51
Q

Sprecht v. Patterson (1967)

A

Definition

Persons being comitted under sexual psychopath laws get same criminal due process protections.

52
Q

Allen v. Illinois (1986)

A

Definition
Proceedings under Sexually Dangerous Person Act are civil with treatment aim therefore no 5th Ammendment protection against self-incrimination.

53
Q

Hendricks v. Kansas (1997)

A

Definition

Failure to offer treatment to committed SVPs does not make act punitive.

54
Q

Kansas v. Crane (2002)

A

Definition

No finding of complete lack of control necessary for committment of SVPs.

55
Q

Term

Canterbury v. Spence (1972)

A

Definition

Physician must disclose what a reasonable patient would want to know to make informed decision.

56
Q

Term

Roy v. Hartogs (1975)

A

Definition

Sex with patients is malpractice

57
Q

Term

Kaimowitz v. Michigan Department of Mental Health (1973)

A

Definition
A person who is involuntarily detained in a state facility cannot give legally adequate consent to an inovative or experimental surgical procedure on the brain

58
Q

Term

Superintendent of Belchertown v. Saikowicz (Mass. 1977)

A

Definition
“substituted judgment doctrine” for decisions involving life sustaining treatment for mentally incompetent person in state institution

59
Q

Term

In re. Lifschutz (1970)

A

Definition

The patient not the doctor owns the privilege

60
Q

Term

Jaffe v. Redmond (1996)

A

Definition

psychotherapist privilege in federal court

61
Q

Term

Lipari v. Sears (1980)

A

Definition

Duty to protect non-specific victims (the public)

62
Q

Term

Jablonski v. U.S. (1983)

A

Definition

failure to request records that showed danger

63
Q

Term

Durham v. US (1954)

A

Definition

The accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act is the product of mental disease or defect

64
Q

Term

Washington v. US (1967)

A

Definition

barred psychiatrists from testifying to the ultimate issue

65
Q

Term

Model Penal Code (1955) or ALI test

A

Definition
A person is not responsible for his criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. Does NOT include psychopathy.

66
Q

Term

Federal Rule 1984

A

Definition
In federal courts, insanity is affirmative defense, clear and convincing evidence:
“at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts.”

67
Q

Term

Clark v. Arizona (2006)

A

Definition
Due process is NOT violated by eliminating “nature and quality” language from NGRI test or precluding expert testimony on diminished capacity.

68
Q

Term

Ake v. Oklahoma (1985)

A

Definition
indigent defendants must be provided a psychiatrist to:
1. Assist in assessing NGRI defense
2. Help corss opposing expert
3. Help assess mitigating factors for death penalty phase

69
Q

Term

Frendak v. US (1979)

A

Definition
A defendant may voluntarily and intelligently forego a NGRI defense. A court may impose an NGRI defense on an unwilling competent defendant who refuses it for irrational resons

70
Q

Term

Jones v. US (1983)

A

Definition

  1. affirmed leaving the burden of proof on the NGRI aquitee
  2. aquitees may be held longer than max sentence
  3. Dangerousness is any criminal act
71
Q

Term

Foucha v. Louisiana (1992)

A

Definition

Insanity aquitees must be both mentally ill and dangerous to be held.

72
Q

Term

ERISA section 514

A

Definition

the provisions of ERISA supercede state laws

73
Q

Term

ERISA sec 502a

A

Definition

may recover monetary value of denied claim only

74
Q

Term

Corcoran v. United Health Care, Inc. (1992)

A

Definition

no emotional distress claims, no punitive claims

75
Q

Term

Dukes v. US Healthcare, Inc

A

Definition

Malpractice claims made by HMOs are not preempted by ERISA. Failure to provide adequate care is malpractice.

76
Q

Term

Frye v. US (1923)

A

Definition

Scientific evidence must achieve general acceptance in the scientific community

77
Q

Term

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993)

A

Definition
JUdges should consider: 1. whether the theory can be tested 2. peer review 3. error rate 4. standards 5. widespread acceptance

78
Q

Term

General Electric v. Joiner (1997)

A

Definition

Ok to exclude expert based only on judge finding an experts finding unsupported.

79
Q

Term

Kuhmo Tire v. Carmichael (1999)

A

Definition

Daubert standard applies also to soft sciences

80
Q

Term
Painter v. Bannister (1966)
Definition
CHILD CUSTODY

A

Court awarded custody to the grandparents over father articulating best interest of the child standard.

81
Q

Term

Standard of evidence for child custody

A

Definition

preponderance

82
Q

Term

Parham v. JL and JR (1979)

A

Definition

Parents right to sign in children to hospital involuntarily uphel

83
Q

Roper versus Simmons

A

The state cannot execute in individual admits to crying before the age of 18

84
Q

Ford versus Wainwright

A

Questions the ability of the state to execute a person who is not in the right mind
Under Ford, once a prisoner seeking a stay of execution makes a “substantial threshold showing of insanity”, he must be afforded a fair hearing at which the question of his competence to be executed can be resolved. This means he must have an “opportunity to be heard” by an impartial decisionmaker. In other words, the legal determination of his competence to be executed cannot rest solely on the determination of experts, because doing so would prevent the inmate from offering evidence to rebut any expert’s opinion that he was competent to be executed.

85
Q

Panetti v. Quarterman

A

a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, ruling that criminal defendants sentenced to death may not be executed if they do not understand the reason for their imminent execution, and that once the state has set an execution date death-row inmates may litigate their competency to be executed in habeas corpus proceedings

86
Q

Atkins versus Virginia

A

Mentally retarded may not be able to adequately defend themselves.
Mentally retarded people may not be able to make appropriate decisions.
Executing a mentally retarded person serves no societal purpose

87
Q

Suicide rates in mental disorder

A

suicide part of natural course of untreated psychiatric illness; estimated to occur in 5% to 10% of patients with personality disorders, 4% to 5% of patients with schizophrenia, 6% of patients with affective disorders, and 7% of patients with alcohol abuse disorder who do not receive treatment

88
Q

Bellah v Greenson (California)

A

Bellah v Greenson (California) set precedent for courts nationwide;

Forensic Psychitatry (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions