LANDMARK CASES Flashcards
Frye v. U.S. - year?
1923
Frye v. U.S. - court?
D.C. Court of Appeals
Frye v. U.S. - focus?
Admissibility of expert witness testimony
Frye v. U.S. - bottom line?
Methodology must have gained general acceptance in the scientific community
What is the Frye rule?
General acceptance in the scientific community
Which landmark case superseded Frye?
Daubert v. Merrell Dow
The defendant in this case was convicted of the murder of a physician. He appealed the decision based upon the exclusion of expert evidence. The expert planned to testify about the results of a systolic blood pressure deception detection test. Case?
Frye v. U.S.
Frye v. U.S. - Admission of expert evidence was objected to by the state. What did the expert plan to testify about what?
The results of a systolic blood pressure deception detection test
Frye v. U.S. - Admission of expert evidence was objected to by the state and was excluded by the trial judge.
Holding?
The judgment was affirmed because the systolic blood pressure deception test had not yet gained such standing and scientific recognition among authorities in the field. in which it belongs.
The general acceptance test is now only one of several considerations under what standard?
Daubert
The Frye test is still used in the District of Columbia and how many states?
16
What rigid test was at odds with the liberal thrust of the Federal Rules and their general approach of relaxing the traditional barriers to opinion testimony?
Frye test
Daubert v. Merrell Dow - year?
1993
Daubert v. Merrell Dow - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
Daubert v. Merrell Dow - focus?
Federal Rules of Evidence provide the standard for admissibility of experts
Daubert factors? (5)
1) General acceptance (Frye)
2) Has the technique been tested
3) Peer reviewed publication
4) Error rate
5) Existence of standards
Trial judge is the gatekeeper for admission of only valid and reliable expert witness testimony. Case?
Daubert v. Merrell Dow (1993)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow - known error rate. What % of surveyed judges understood what this is?
4%
Why did the federal District Court grant Merrell Dow’s request for summary judgment?
Based on a well credentialed expert’s affidavit stating that the extensive published literature had not shown the maternal use of Bendectin to be a risk factor for human birth defects.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow - Why did the District Court exclude the plaintiff’s expert evidence?
It did not meet the Frye standard. The experts based their conclusion that Bendectin can cause birth defects on animal studies, chemical structure analyses, and unpublished “reanalysis” of previously published human statistical studies.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow - The District Court exclude the plaintiff’s expert evidence because it did not meet the Frye standard. What was the holding of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals?
Affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow - The District Court exclude the plaintiff’s expert evidence because it did not meet the Frye standard. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. What was the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court?
Held that the Federal Rules of Evidence, NOT Frye, provide the standard for admitting expert scientific evidence in a federal trial.
The Federal Rules of Evidence were originally adopted by Congress in what year?
1975
Daubert v. Merrell Dow - what is the appropriate means by which evidence based on valid principles may be challenged? (3)
1) Cross examination
2) Presentation of contrary evidence
3) Careful instruction on the burden of proof rather than wholesale exclusion
The appropriate means by which evidence based on valid principles may be challenged include:
1) Cross examination
2) Presentation of contrary evidence
3) Careful instruction on the burden of proof rather than wholesale exclusion
Landmark case?
Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Kumho Tire v. Carmichael - year?
1999
Kumho Tire v. Carmichael - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
Daubert’s gatekeeping function of trial judges applies to all expert witnesses , not just scientists. Landmark case?
Kumho Tire v. Carmichael
Kumho Tire v. Carmichael - focus?
Daubert applies to not only scientific evidence, but also “skill or experience-based” evidence
Robinson v. California - year?
1962
Robinson v. California - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
Robinson v. California - Mr. Robinson was stopped by the L.A. police and found to have needle marks on his arms. It was then a misdemeanor in CA to be addicted to the use of narcotics, even in the absence of actual criminal bx related to that addiction. What did the U.S. Supreme Court find regarding the CA statute?
The CA statute violated the 8th Amendment - cruel and unusual punishment.
To punish the “status” of narcotic addiction would be the same as making it a crime for a person to have a mental illness. Landmark case?
Robinson v. California
“Even one day in prison would be cruel and unusual punishment for the crime of having the common cold.”
Landmark case?
Robinson v. California
Helped remove many status crimes such as homelessness and vagrancy from statutes. Landmark case?
Robinson v. California
Powell v. Texas - year?
1968
Powell v. Texas - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
The defendant was arrested for being intoxicated in a public place. He raised the defense that he was a chronic alcoholic and under Robinson his case should be dismissed. Landmark case?
Powell v. Texas (1968)
What was the issue in Powell v. Texas (1968)?
Public intoxication - was his bx due to his alcoholic “status” or a non-volitional result of disease
Powell v. Texas (1968) - The defendant was arrested for being intoxicated in a public place. He raised the defense that he was a chronic alcoholic and under Robinson his case should be dismissed. Holding?
Powell was convicted for the act of public intoxication, not his status. Robinson rationale was rejected. Those who ACT under the influence should be held accountable.
Court feared that Powell’s claims might suggest that irresistible compulsion to drink would lead to constitutional basis for insanity
Powell v. Texas (1968) - what Amendment was in question?
14th - Whether the 14th Amendment prohibited states from criminalizing public intoxication as either a “status” or as a bx that was a non-volitional result of a disease
Montana v. Egelhoff - year?
1996
Montana v. Egelhoff - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
Montana v. Egelhoff - Defendant engaged in extensive drinking with his two homicide victims. He had amnesia for his two homicides. He was charged with deliberate homicide - what did this mean in Montana?
“Purposely” or “knowingly” killing someone (specific intent).
Montana v. Egelhoff - Defendant engaged in extensive drinking with his two homicide victims. He had amnesia for his two homicides. A new law in Montana required that the jury be instructed that it could not consider the defendant’s intoxication in determining the existence of what?
His mens rea.
Montana v. Egelhoff - Defendant engaged in extensive drinking with his two homicide victims. He had amnesia for his two homicides. A new law in Montana required that the jury be instructed that it could not consider the defendant’s intoxication in determining the existence of his mens rea. What did the Supreme Court saw about the Montana law?
Upheld that the Montana law as constitutional.
Montana v. Egelhoff - Defendant engaged in extensive drinking with his two homicide victims. He had amnesia for his two homicides. A new law in Montana required that the jury be instructed that it could not consider the defendant’s intoxication in determining the existence of his mens rea. The Supreme Court stated that it did not violate __________ because it did not violate a “fundamental principle of justice.”
Due process
This landmark case holding allows a state legislature to exclude evidence that tends to negate an element of a crime, lessening the work of the prosecution and closing some options for the defense. As a result of the decision, when a law similar to that of Montana’s exists, there may be no need for any debate regarding the effect of the alcohol on the defendant with regard to the defendant’s mens rea.
Montana v. Egelhoff (1996)
Montana v. Egelhoff - What amendment is considered?
Whether the due process clause of the 14th Amendment is violated by the Montana Code, which provides the voluntary intoxication “may not be taken into consideration in determining the existence of a mental state which is an element of a criminal offense.
Montana v. Egelhoff - The Montana Supreme Court concluded that because the Montana Code prevented the jury from considering Egelhoff’s public intoxication, he had been denied due process. What did the U.S. Supreme Court say?
Reversed the Montana Supreme Court ruling.
Washington v. Harper - year?
1990
Washington v. Harper - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
What landmark case examined under what conditions antipsychotic medications could be administered against an inmate’s will.
Washington v. Harper (1990)
Washington v. Harper - Harper claimed that his what Amendment right had been violated when antipsychotic medication was given against his will?
14th Amendment - substantive due process rights
Does lack of judicial hearing for involuntary medication violate the 14th Amendment of an inmate? Landmark case?
Washington v. Harper (1990)
Washington v. Harper (1990) - Does lack of judicial hearing for involuntary medication violate the 14th Amendment of an inmate? Holding?
No. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the institutional policy that allowed an internal administrative review panel, rather than a judicial hearing, to determine if an inmate could be involuntarily medicated. The state may treat a mentally ill prison inmate with antipsychotic medication if dangerous to self or others and treatment is in their medical interest.
Washington v. Harper (1990) - The Supreme Court applied the ____ test and observed that the prison policy governing the involuntary administration of antipsychotic drugs would be constitutional as long as it was “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”
Turner test
The Supreme Court applied the Turner test and observed that the prison policy governing the involuntary administration of antipsychotic drugs would be constitutional as long as it was “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Landmark case?
Washington v. Harper (1990)
When a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Test?
Turner test.
Sell v. U.S. - year?
2003
Sell v. U.S. - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
According to Sell v. U.S. - medication to restore trial competency could be administered involuntarily under what circumstances? (4)
1) Important government interest is at stake
2) Medication must be substantially likely to render defendant competent and unlikely to have side effects that will interfere with the defendant’s ability to assist counsel
3) Less intrusive txs are not available
4) “in the patient’s best medical interest in light of his medical condition”
According to Sell v. U.S. - before administering involuntary medication to restore trial competency the government should look to alternative grounds for forced medication such as what? (2)
1) dangerousness
2) incompetence to consent to medication
Riggins v. Nevada - year?
1992
Sell case does not happen until 2003
Riggins v. Nevada - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
Riggins v. Nevada - Riggins told a private psychiatrist that he was hearing voices and was rx’d Mellaril and dx’d w schizophrenia. He was found competent to stand trial. A defense motion was made to suspend administration of Mellaril until the end of the trial. The defense argued that Mellaril infringed upon his freedom - that its effect on his demeanor and mental state during trial would deny him what?
Due process. He had the right to show jurors his true mental state when he offered an insanity defense.
Riggins v. Nevada - Riggins told a private psychiatrist that he was hearing voices and was rx’d Mellaril and dx’d w schizophrenia. He was found competent to stand trial. A defense motion was made to suspend administration of Mellaril until the end of the trial. The defense argued that Mellaril infringed upon his freedom - that its effect on his demeanor and mental state during trial would deny him due process. The Nevada Supreme Court held that the expert testimony was sufficient to inform the jury of the Mellaril’s effect on Riggin’s demeanor. What was the U.S. Supreme Court holding?
The forced administration of antipsychotic medication during Riggins’ trial violated his 6th and 14th Amendment rights.
The issue about whether Riggins’ 8th Amendment claim that Mellaril denied him an opportunity to show jurors his true mental condition was not addressed by the lower courts or the U.S. Supreme Court.
Which landmark case holds that forcing an antipsychotic on a convicted prisoner is impermissible, absent a finding of overriding justification and the determination of medical appropriateness?
Washington v. Harper (1990)
In Riggins v. Nevada how might Nevada have satisfied due process?
Nevada would have satisfied due process if the prosecution had demonstrated that antipsychotic tx was medically appropriate and, considering less intrusive alternative txs, essential for the sake of Riggins’ own safety and the safety of others. (Following Harper in 1990).
What landmark case recognized that inmates have a significant constitutionally protected liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs and held that the Due Process Clause permits involuntary administration of antipsychotics to an inmate with a SMI if the inmate is dangerous and the tx is in the inmate’s medical interest?
Washington v. Harper (1990)
In this landmark case the Supreme Court suggested in dicta that involuntary medication to restore competence to stand trial could be constitutionally permissible if adjudication of the charges could not be achieved by less intrusive means.
Riggins v. Nevada (1992)
Riggins v. Nevada - Amendments addressed?
6th and 14th
6th Amendment is key in Due Process (fair and speedy jury, etc)
The Supreme Court said that the test for competency that must be met is whether the defendant “has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” Landmark case?
Dusky v. U.S. (1960)
Dusky v. U.S. - year?
1960
Dusky v. U.S. - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
In Dusky v. U.S. Dusky did understand the charges and basic elements of criminal procedure but he was “unable to properly assist” in his own defense. Why did the trial court find him competent?
He was oriented and had some recollection of the events.
The prevailing standard for competence to stand trial as established by Dusky v. U.S. requires?
Specific trial-related capacities and not just a defendant who is oriented
Wilson v. U.S. - year?
1968
Wilson v. U.S. - court?
D.C. Circuit of Appeals
Wilson v. U.S. - Mr. Wilson was convicted of a crime, in an attempted getaway he was involved in a MVA and suffered retrograde amnesia. After 14 months in St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, the trial judge concluded that he was competent to stand trial in spite of his permanent retrograde amnesia. He appealed on the basis that his amnesia made him IST. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals holding?
Remanded the case to the trial judge for more extensive post trial findings on the question of whether the appellant’s loss of memory did in fact deprive him of a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel to which the 5th and 6th Amendments entitled him.
According to Wilson v. U.S., the trial judge should consider the following 6 factors:
1) Extent amnesia affects defendant’s ability to assist his lawyer
2) Extent amnesia affects the defendant’s ability to testify on his own behalf
3) Extent to which the evidence could be extrinsically reconstructed
4) Extent to which the government assisted the defendant and his counsel in that reconstruction
5) Strength of the prosecution’s case
6) Any other facts and circumstances which would indicate whether or not the defendant had a fair trial
Jackson v. Indiana - year?
1972
Jackson v. Indiana - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
Jackson v. Indiana - Mr. Jackson was a mentally defective, deaf mute man. Held in a psychiatric hospital as IST, an appeal was filed claiming that Jackson’s commitment amounted to a life sentence without his ever having been convicted of a crime. What Amendment did this violate?
14th -
Equal protection (he had no been charged with a criminal offense, the decision about whether to commit Jackson would be according to a different standard)
AND
Due process (without a finding of dangerousness one can be held only for a reasonable period of time necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability of attaining CST.
“Due process requires that the nature and duration of commitment bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed.” Original landmark case?
Jackson v. Indiana (1972)
Cooper v. Oklahoma - year?
1996
Cooper v. Oklahoma - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
Does the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause allow a state to require a criminal defendant to prove incompetence to stand trial by a standard of clear and convincing evidence? Issue in what landmark case?
Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996)
What component of Due Process was violated in Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996)?
To require that a defendant show incompetence by clear and convincing evidence violates “fundamental fairness.”
Fundamental fairness was the component of Due Process that was violated in Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996). The ruling in this case safeguards the fundamental right to what?
Not be required to stand trial while incompetent.
Indiana v. Edwards - year?
2008
Indiana v. Edwards - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
Indiana v. Edwards - He was found IST previously and requested to represent himself (pro se). The trial court refused and he proceeded to trial with counsel representation. He appealed, arguing that the trial court’s refusal to allow him to represent himself violated his 6th Amendment right of self-representation. USSC holding?
Held that the Constitution permits a State to limit a defendant’s right to self-representation by insisting upon representation by counsel at trial on the ground that the defendant lacks the mental capacity to conduct his trial defense unless represented. The presiding trial judge is best able to make fine-tuned mental capacity decisions at hearings and trial.
This landmark case creates the notion of a new legal standard of competence to represent oneself, but does not adopt a clarifying definition of its components.
Indiana v. Edwards (2008)
Godinez v. Moran - year?
1993
Godinez v. Moran - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
In what landmark case did the USSC reject the notion that competence to plead guilty or to waive the right to counsel must be measured by a standard that is higher than (or even different from the Dusky standard?
Godinez v. Moran (1993)
In this landmark case, the defendant killed multiple people, was found competent to stand trial, discharged his attorney and plead guilty. He was sentenced to death and then petitioned for habeas corpus. What was the USSC holding>
USSC held with the majority of the federal courts = a person who is competent to stand trial is also competent to plead guilty.
The Court recognized that competence to waive the right to counsel is not the same as competence to represent oneself.
State v. Hurd - year?
1980
State v. Hurd - court?
Superior Court of New Jersey
The issues in this landmark case were: (1) whether a victim could be allowed to make an identification in court after she had been unable to do so prior to hypnosis; (2) whether hypnosis was reliable enough to be used for memory enhancement; (3) whether the method used in this case was unnecessarily suggestive, so that the identification should be suppressed. Landmark case?
State v. Hurd (1980)
In State v. Hurd (1980) the Superior Court of New Jersey decided that whether hypnotically refreshed testimony should be admissible should be decided on a case by case basis. What are the 6 standards outlined by Dr. Orne to assess whether a hypnotically induced recollection is admissible?
1) Hypnotic session conducted by trained psychiatrist or psychologist
2) The qualified professional should be independent of the court
3) Any information given to hypnotists by law enforcement personnel should be written
4) Before hypnosis, the hypnotist should obtain from the subject a detailed description of the facts as the subject remembers them in order to avoid adding any new elements to the witness’ description of the events.
5) Session must be tape recorded
6) Only hypnotist and subject should be present during session
In State v. Hurd (1980) Jane Sell was attacked in her home. She underwent hypnosis by Dr. Spiegel. Under trance she stated that her ex-husband was the assailant. During a post-hypnotic session Mrs. Sell continued to be uncertain of the assailant’s identification, but she was urged to “accept” it by Dr. Spiegel and the detective in the case. What right was violated in this case?
Due process rights of the defendant were violated by the suggestive methods in this case.
People v. Shirley - year?
1982
People v. Shirley - court?
California Supreme Court
In what landmark case did the California Supreme Court decide that hypnotically refreshed testimony of witnesses should be excluded.
People v. Shirley (1982)
Rock v. Arkansas - year?
1987
Rock v. Arkansas - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
Rock v. Arkansas - The Supreme Court held that Arkansas per se rule excluding all hypnotically refreshed testimony violated the defendants constitutional rights. Which 3 rights were violated?
5th) were violated because every defendant is permitted to testify on her own behalf
6th) were violated because defendants are permitted to call witnesses on their behalf
14th) were violated because due process includes a right to offer testimony
Rock v. Arkansas - USSC holding?
A defendant’s hypnotically refreshed memories cannot be excluded
The McNaughtan test is a combination of what two tests?
1) Cognitive capacity: Wild beast test (nature and quality of the act)
2) Moral capacity: Spigurnel’s right-wrong test
Durham v. U.S. - year?
1954
Durham v. U.S. - court?
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
What landmark case states that an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect?
Durham v. U.S. (1954)
Washington v. U.S. - year?
1967
Washington v. U.S. - court?
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
In Washington v. U.S. Mr. Washington was convicted by a jury of rape/robbery/assault. His major defense was insanity. On appeal, the defendant contended that the trial judge should have entered a judgment of acquittal by reason of insanity as a matter of law. What was the holding of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals?
The conviction was affirmed. Psychiatrists were prohibited from addressing the ultimate issue in insanity cases.
Clark v. Arizona - year?
2006
Clark v. Arizona - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
In Clark v. Arizona, Mr. Clark was charged with first degree murder. He had a known dx of schizophrenia and presented that he thought aliens were trying to kill him and the only way to stop them was with bullets. The prosecutor produced evidence that Clark knew the victim was a police officer and shot him. Clark was found guilty, he appealed based on violation of what?
Due process.
1) The constitutionality of an Arizona statue that changed the insanity standard from a full to modified M’Naghten focusing only on if the defendant knew right from wrong.
2) Whether a prior Arizona Supreme Court decision which prohibited the defendant from introducing evidence of mental illness to rebut evidence of requisite criminal intent
In Clark v. Arizona,Clark was found guilty, he appealed based on violation of due process:
1) The constitutionality of an Arizona statue that changed the insanity standard from a full to modified M’Naghten focusing only on if the defendant knew right from wrong.
2) Whether a prior Arizona Supreme Court decision which prohibited the defendant from introducing evidence of mental illness to rebut evidence of requisite criminal intent.
What was the USSC holding?
Due Process does not prohibit Arizona’s use of an insanity test solely in term of the capacity to tell whether an act was right or wrong. Arizona also has the right to preculde mental health testimony on the issue of mens rea without violating Due Process.
The conviction of Clark was upheld.
This Act shifted the burden of proof to the defendant and sharply narrowed the test for insanity.
Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984
Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 - who has the burden of proof?
Defendant
Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 - what is the burden of proof?
Clear and convincing evidence
What insanity verdict led to the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984?
1981 Hinckley insanity verdict
Ibn-Tamas v. U.S. - year?
1979
Ibn-Tamas v. U.S. - court?
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
In Ibn-Tamas v. U.S., Dr. Lenore Walker’s testimony on the subject of “battered women” was excluded by the trial court. What was the holding of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals?
The case was remanded to gather more evidence on Dr. Walker’s methodology.
In Ibn-Tamas v. U.S., The D.C. Court of Appeals stated that there are 2 ways in which an expert can preempt the jury’s function. What are they?
1) speak directly to the ultimate issue
2) speak to matters in which “the jury is just as competent as the expert to consider and weight the evidence and draw the necessary conclusions” = “the matter is not beyond the ken of the average layman.”
In Ibn-Tamas v. U.S., with respect to the issue of whether the expert would testify tom matters which the jury itself is just as competent to consider, the D.C. Court of Appeals adopted a threefold test for admissibility:
1) subject matter must be so distinctly related to some science as to be beyond the ken of the average layman
2) the expert witness must have sufficient skill, knowledge, or experience in that field as to make it appear that his opinion will probably aid the trier in his search for the truth
3) expert testimony is inadmissible if the state of the pertinent art does not permit a reasonable opinion to be asserted even by an expert
Thus, the subject of the testimony must lend itself to expertise, the proffered expert must be
qualified to give it, and expert must have studied the subject in a manner that will justify an expert
opinion.
Frendak v. U.S. - year?
1979
Frendak v. U.S. - court?
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
Under the Whalen rule, when was the trial judge required to interpose an insanity defense?
When there was sufficient question as to the defendant’s mental responsibility at the time of the crime
Under the Whalen rule, the trial judge required to interpose an insanity defense when there was sufficient question as to the defendant’s mental responsibility at the time of the crime. What factors were identified in Whalen that suggested that the court might impose an insanity defense? (4)
1) bizarre nature of the crime
2) desire of the defense counsel to raise the defense
3) differing views of experts regarding insanity
4) the defendant’s bx at trial
In Frendak v. U.S., the trial court imposed an insanity defense on Ms. Frendak against her wishes. She appealed. What did the D.C. Court of Appeals hold?
The court ruled that a trial judge may not force an insanity defense on a defendant found competent to stand trial if the defendant intelligently and voluntarily decides to forego the defense. A trial court’s finding of CST is not, in itself, sufficient to show that the defendant is capable of rejecting an insanity defense. The trial judge must make further inquiry into whether the defendant has made an intelligent and voluntary decision. Because it was unclear whether Ms. Frendak made such a decision, the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Jones v. U.S. - year?
1983
Jones v. U.S. - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
In Jones v. U.S., Mr. Jones successfully raised the insanity defense for attempted shoplifting of a jacket (misdemeanor - punishable by no more than one year). His confinement was for an indefinite period until such time as he could affirmatively establish that he was no longer mentally ill or dangerous. After a year he demanded on due process grounds to be released or at least recommitted pursuant to the applicable civil commitment statue. Under the general civil commitment statute - burden of proof for government to prove that Jones remained mentally ill and dangerous?
Clear and convincing
In Jones v. U.S., Mr. Jones successfully raised the insanity defense for attempted shoplifting of a jacket (misdemeanor - punishable by no more than one year). His confinement was for an indefinite period until such time as he could affirmatively establish that he was no longer mentally ill or dangerous. After a year he demanded on due process grounds to be released or at least recommitted pursuant to the applicable civil commitment statue. What was the holding of the USSC?
The USSC rejected Jones’ argument.
“when a criminal defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that he is not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity, the Constitution permits the
government, on the basis of the insanity judgment, to confine him to a mental institution until such
time as he has regained his sanity or is no longer a danger to himself or society.”
In the U.S. Supreme Court’s words, “There simply is no necessary correlation between severity of the offense and length of time necessary for recovery. The length of the acquittee’s hypothetical criminal sentence therefore is irrelevant to the purposes of his commitment.” Landmark case?
Jones v. U.S. (1983)
Foucha v. Louisiana - year?
1992
Foucha v. Louisiana - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
In Foucha v. Louisiana, Foucha was found NGRI after he was charged with burglary and illegal discharge of a firearm. In Louisiana, the trial court must hold a hearing to determine whether an insanity acquittee is dangerous to himself or others. The treating tx stated that he had “antisocial personality,” a conditon that is untreatable. He remained in the hospital. THe Louisiana Supreme Court agreed with the lower court. What did the USSC say?
Held that Foucha’s due process rights were violated because the Louisiana statue allowed an insanity acquittee to be committed to a mental institution until he is able to demonstrate that he is not dangerous to himself or others, even though he doe not suffer from any mental illness.
HE MUST BE MENTALLY ILL AND DANGEROUS.
In Foucha v. Louisiana, three difficulties with the state’s attempt to confine Foucha on the basis of his antisocial personality were identified. What are the 3 difficulties?
1) keeping him against his will in a mental institution was improper absent a determination in civil commitment proceedings of current mental illness and dangerousness. Due process requires that the nature of the commitment bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed
2) If he can no longer be held as an insanity acquittee in a mental hospital, he is entitled to constitutionally adequate procedures to establish the grounds for his confinement
3) The substantive component of the Due Process Clause bars certain arbitrary wrongful government actions - the state may not incarcerate Foucha as punishment because he was never convicted.
Foucha v. Louisiana - the Louisiana statue discriminated against Foucha on the basis of what clause(s) of the 14th Amendment?
1) due process
2) equal protections
North Carolina v. Alford - year?
1970
North Carolina v. Alford - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
In North Carolina v. Alford, Alford plea guilty to murder., but throughout the trial he continued to protest his innocence. He sought post-conviction relief after sentencing, stating that he pled guilty only because he was fearful of the death penalty. The Court of Appeals ruled that Alford’s guilty plea was involuntary because its principal motivation was fear of the death penalty. What was the holding of the USSC?
The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals decision and held that the trial court did not commit constitutional error in accepting Alford’s guilty plea. A defendant may voluntarily and intelligently plead guilty while protesting his innocence.
Making an ____ plea means entering into a plea bargain while protesting one’s innocence.
Alford
Colorado v. Connelly - year?
1986
Colorado v. Connelly - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
In Colorado v. Connelly - the trial court and Colorado Supreme Court agreed that Connelly’s confession should be suppressed as involuntary because he was following CAH and had not ben able to exercise a “free and rational” choice. What did the USSC hold?
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision
of the lower courts, establishing that a confession is to be
considered voluntary unless there is some evidence of
police coercion in eliciting it.
The Court found that a voluntary confession would be one
made without intimidation, coercion, or deception, none of
which were present when Connelly confessed.
In Colorado v. Connelly, what Amendment/clause is in question?
14th Amendment/Due Process. However, the USSC did not find a basis for finding that the state had deprived Connelly of due process of law under the 14th Amendment, which states that a confession must be voluntary.
The “right to blurt” is part of what landmark case?
Colorado v. Connelly (1986)
Specht v. Patterson - year?
1967
Specht v. Patterson - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
In Specht v. Patterson, Mr. Specht filed a petition for habeas corpus in Federal District Court to challenge his detention under the Colorado “Sex Offenders Act.” He had been convicted of “indecent liberties.” However, instead of being sentenced for that crime (maximum potential sentence of 10 years) he had been sentenced under the Sex Offenders Act to an indefinite term ( one
day to life). What Amendment/Clause was violated?
14th Amendment, Due Process Clause.
In Specht v. Patterson, the 14th Amendment, due process clause was violated. What four parts were absent when Specht was sentenced under the Sex Offenders Act to an indefinite term?
1) the right to be present with counsel
2) to confront the evidence against him
3) to cross-examine witnesses
4) to offer his own evidence and be heard.
Allen v. Illinois - year?
1986
Allen v. Illinois - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
In Allen v. Illinois, Mr. Allen was charged with committing sex crimes. Illinois filed a petition to have Mr. Allen declared a sexually dangerous person. The trial court ordered Mr. Allen to submit to 2 psychiatric examinations and the psychiatrists testified. Allen objected that the psychiatrists had elicited information from him in violation of his privilege against what?
Self-incrimination
In Allen v. Illinois, Mr. Allen was charged with committing sex crimes. Illinois filed a petition to have Mr. Allen declared a sexually dangerous person. The trial court ordered Mr. Allen to submit to 2 psychiatric examinations and the psychiatrists testified. Allen objected that the psychiatrists had elicited information from him in violation of his privilege against self-incrimination. Why did the Supreme Court of Illinois hold that the 5th Amendment privilege was not available?
Because the Sexually Dangerous Person Proceedings were “essentially civil in nature.” The 5th Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any CRIMINAL case to be a witness against himself.
In Allen v. Illinois, Mr. Allen was charged with committing sex crimes. Illinois filed a petition to have Mr. Allen declared a sexually dangerous person. The trial court ordered Mr. Allen to submit to 2 psychiatric examinations and the psychiatrists testified. Allen objected that the psychiatrists had elicited information from him in violation of his privilege against self-incrimination. What was the USSC holding?
Agreed with the Supreme Court of Illinois.
Proceedings under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act are not criminal within the meaning of the Fifth
Amendment’s guarantees against compulsory self incrimination.
Kansas v. Hendricks - year?
1997
Kansas v. Hendricks - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
In Kansas v. Hendricks, the Sexually Violent Predator Act defined a “sexually violent predator” as “any person who has been convicted or or charged with a sexually violent offense and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the person likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence.” They can be civilly committed at the end of their prison term and have a right to an annual review by the state. State’s burden of proof?
They have a right to an annual review in which the state must show beyond a reasonable doubt that they remain a “sexually violent predator.”
In Kansas v. Hendricks, the Sexually Violent Predator Act defined a “sexually violent predator” as “any person who has been convicted or or charged with a sexually violent offense and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the person likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence.” They can be civilly committed at the end of their prison term and have a right to an annual review by the state. Issue #1 Does the Sexually Violent Predator Act’s definition of “mental abnormality” satisfy substantive due process?
The USSC found the Act constitutional.
The Kansas legislature is not required to use the specific term “mental illness” as a basis for civil commitment.
In Kansas v. Hendricks, the Sexually Violent Predator Act defined a “sexually violent predator” as “any person who has been convicted or or charged with a sexually violent offense and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the person likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence.” They can be civilly committed at the end of their prison term and have a right to an annual review by the state. Issue #2 Does the Act violate the constitutional ban on double jeopardy or ex post facto lawmaking?
The Kansas Act does not violate the constitution’s double jeopardy prohibition, or its ban on ex post facto lawmaking. Involuntary confinement under the Act is for the purpose of treatment or protection of the public, rather than punishment.
Kansas v. Crane - year?
2002
Kansas v. Crane - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
In Kansas v. Crane, Mr. Crane plead guilty to aggravated sexual battery. The state filed a petition to have him evaluated as a sexual predator under Kansas’ Sexually Violent Predator Act. Issue: Does the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause require a State to prove that a
sexually violent predator “cannot” control his criminal sexual behavior before the State can civilly commit him?
The 7:2 majority stated that the Hendricks ruling set forth no requirement of total or complete lack of control, but the Constitution does not permit commitment of the type of
dangerous sexual offender considered in Hendricks without any lack-of-control determination.
The Court vacated and remanded the case to the: Kansas Supreme Court.
In Kansas v. Crane, Mr. Crane plead guilty to aggravated sexual battery. The state filed a petition to have him evaluated as a sexual predator under Kansas’ Sexually Violent Predator Act. A State psychiatrist dx’d Crane with exhibitionism and ASPD. No expert offered the opinion that Crane could not control his sexual impulses. What Amendment and clause is questioned in this case?
Does the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause require a State to prove that a sexually violent predator “cannot” control his criminal sexual behavior before the State can civilly commit him
In Kansas v. Crane, the USSC went back and commented on the decision made in Kansas v. Hendricks, which stated that the Kansas Act required an abnormality or disorder that makes it “difficult,” if not impossible, for the dangerous person to control his dangerous bx. Lack of control was not absolute. What are examples of proof of “serious difficulty” in controlling bx?
1) nature of psychiatric dx
2) severity of mental abnormality
These two factors must be sufficient to distinguish the dangerous sexual offender whose serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder subjects him to civil commitment from the dangerous but typical recidivist convicted in an ordinary criminal case`.
In Kansas v. Crane, a State psychiatrist diagnosed Crane with exhibitionism and antisocial personality disorder. No
expert offered the opinion that Crane could not control his sexual impulses. What happened to Crane?
He was released. In March, 2003, Mr. Crane was arrested on a new rape charge.
U.S. v. Comstock - year?
2010
U.S. v. Comstock - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
In U.S. v. Comstock, Mr. Comstock was serving a federal prison sentence for possession of what?
Child Porn
In U.S. v. Comstock, Mr. Comstock was serving a federal prison sentence for possession of child porn. 6 days before he was released he was classified as a “sexually dangerous person.” Burden of proof?
Clear and convincing evidence
In U.S. v. Comstock, Mr. Comstock challenged being detained as “sexually dangerous person” because it violated what amendments and clauses?
6th, 8th, and 10th Amendments Due Process Double Jeopardy Ex Post Facto Necessary and Proper Clause
The _______ Clause is a provision under Article 1
Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that enables Congress to make laws required for the exercise of its other enumerated powers.
Necessary and Proper
In U.S. v. Comstock, Mr. Comstock was serving a federal prison sentence for possession of child porn. 6 days before he was released he was classified as a “sexually dangerous person.” He challenged being detained. The USSC granted certiorari limited to the question of Congress’ authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause to enact 4248 (“sexually dangerous person”). Holding?
The USSC held that the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress authority sufficient to enact 4248.
In U.S. v. Comstock, the USSC held that the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress authority sufficient to enact 4248. 5 reasons for doing so?
- The Clause grants Congress broad authority to pass laws.
- Congress already authorized civil commitment of
federal prisoners w mental illness who are dangerous and §4248 is a “modest addition” to this
statutory approach. - The Federal Government has the constitutional
power to act in order to protect the community from potentially dangerous prisoners. - 10th Amendment does not limit the authority to states in this context.
- Section 4248 is narrow in scope and does confer on Congress a general police power, which is reserved for states.
Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe - year?
2003
Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe - court?
USSC
Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe - facts of the case?
In 1998 and 1999, the Connecticut legislature revised their version of Megan’s Law under legislation known as the Connecticut Sex Offender Registry Act (CT-SORA). Convicted sexual offenders must register with the
Department of Public Safety, which posts their names on an Internet Website.
The Internet posting specifically stated that no determination of the individual’s dangerousness had been made.
Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, John Doe was convicted of a sex offense based on conduct that preceded CT-SORA. He filed suit alleging that CT-SORA (Sex Offender Registry) failed to provide him what?
Adequate procedural due process (14th amendment) regarding a hearing about his dangerousness before being subject to the law’s requirements.
Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, John Doe was convicted of a sex offense based on conduct that preceded CT-SORA. He filed suit alleging that CT-SORA (Sex Offender Registry) failed to provide him adequate procedural due process (14th amendment) regarding a hearing about his dangerousness before being subject to the law’s requirements. What did the USSC hold?
Doe was not entitled to a due process hearing regarding dangerousness because the registration
requirement was not based on a current finding of dangerousness and only on Doe’s conviction. The Court emphasized that Doe was provided adequate
procedural safeguards during the criminal process.
Smith v. Doe - year?
2003
Smith v. Doe - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
Smith v. Doe (2003) - facts?
Alaska enacted the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act that contained two retroactive components: a registration requirement and a community notification system.
John Doe were convicted of sexual abuse of a minor and released into the community prior to the passage of the Act.
Both argued that the requirement violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution.
In Smith v. Doe (2003), two sex offenders argued that the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act w a retroactive registration requirement and a community notification system violated what clause?
Ex Post Facto Clause
In Smith v. Doe (2003), two sex offenders argued that the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act w a retroactive registration requirement and a community notification system violated the ex post facto clause. What did the USSC hold?
Because the Act is civil and non-punitive in nature, its retroactive application could not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause, which applies only to criminal proceedings.
Atkins v. Virginia - year?
2002
Atkins v. Virginia - court?
USSC
In Atkins v. Virginia, what was the issue?
Does execution of the mentally retarded constitute cruel and unusual punishment as prohibited by the 8th Amendment?
In Atkins v. Virginia, the question was: Does execution of the mentally retarded constitute cruel and unusual punishment as prohibited by the 8th Amendment? What did the USSC hold?
The Court held by a 6 to 3 majority that executions of mentally retarded criminals are “cruel and unusual punishments” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
Roper v. Simmons - year?
2005
Roper v. Simmons - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
In Roper v. Simmons, the court was asked - is it permissible under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States to execute a juvenile offender who was older than 15 but younger than 18 when he or
she committed a capital offense? Holding?
The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed.
In Roper v. Simmons, what Amendments were in question?
8th - “cruel and unusual punishment”
Applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment
The “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” is mentioned in what landmark case?
Roper v. Simmons (2014)
Graham v. Florida - year?
2010
Graham v. Florida - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
The issue “does sentencing a juvenile to life without the possibility of parole for a non-homicide offense violate the 8th Amendment?” is covered in what landmark case?
Graham v. Florida (2010)
Holding in Graham v. Florida (2010)?
USSC - the 8th Amendment does not permit a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison
without parole for a non homicide crime.
Miller v . Alabama - year?
2012
Miller v. Alabama - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
The issue “Does the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution permit a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison without parole for a homicide crime?” is covered in what landmark case?
Miller v . Alabama (2012)
In this case, the juvenile offender was charged with murder in the course or arson and the trial court imposed a statutorily mandated punishment of life without parole. The state Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts decision, holding that the defendant’s sentence was not overly harsh when compared to the crime.
Miller v . Alabama (2012)
In Miller v . Alabama (2012), the juvenile offender was charged with murder in the course or arson and the trial court imposed a statutorily mandated punishment of life without parole. The state Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts decision, holding that the defendant’s sentence was not overly harsh when compared to the crime. What did the USSC rule?
The US Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment
forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life without possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders. The leaves open the possibility that L WOP could be a sentence when individual factors in an individual homicide case are considered.
Ford v. Wainwright - year?
1986
Ford v. Wainwright - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
In Ford v. Wainwright, Mr. Ford was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. He was found insane (he did not believe that he would be executed since he could control the government through mind waves). The case was appealed to the USSC. What was the holding?
The 8th Amendment prohibits the State from inflicting the death penalty upon a prisoner “who is insane.”
In Ford v. Wainwright, the USSC held that the 8th Amendment prohibits the State from inflicting the death penalty upon a prisoner “who is insane.” The Court cited three common law reasons for not executing the insane, what are they?
1) the questionable retributive value
2) lack of deterrence value
3) it simply offends humanity
Panetti v. Quarterman - year?
2007
Panetti v. Quarterman - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
On appeal, this defendant argued that the 8th Amendment forbids the execution of a prisoner who lacks a rational understanding of the State’s reason for execution. Landmark case?
Panetti v. Quarterman (2007)
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s holding noting that the standard in Ford only required a prisoner to be “aware” of the connection between the crime and the punishment, rather than a “rational understanding” of the punishment. Landmark case?
Panetti v. Quarterman (2007)
What were the two issues in Panetti v. Quarterman (2007)?
- Did the State fail to provide required procedures under the Constitution for a competency
to be executed hearing? - Does the Eighth Amendment permit the execution of an inmate who has a factual awareness of the State’s stated reason for execution, but whose mental illness prevents a
rational understanding of the State’s justification?
In Panetti v. Quarterman (2007), what was the holding of the USSC?
- The state court failed to provide the procedures for a competency to be executed hearing to which Mr. Panetti was entitled under the Constitution.
- The Fifth Circuit employed an improperly restrictive test when it considered Mr. Panetti’s claim of incompetence to be executed.
The Court reversed the Court of Appeals holding and remanded the case for further proceedings to review expert evidence that “may clarify the extent to which severe delusions may render a subject’s perception of reality so distorted that he should be deemed
incompetent.”
State v. Perry - year?
1992
State v. Perry - court?
Louisiana Supreme Court
In this landmark case, the trial court found the defendant was competent to be executed but ordered the medical staff of the Louisiana Department of Corrections to administer medication forcibly to keep him competent to be executed. Upon appeal, the USSC remanded the case back to the trial court for reconsideration in light of what landmark case?
Washington v. Harper (1990)
In State v. Perry (1992), the trial court found the defendant was competent to be executed but ordered the medical staff of the Louisiana Department of Corrections to administer medication forcibly to keep him competent to be executed. What did the Louisiana Supreme Court hold on appeal?
The trial court’s order requiring the state to medicate Perry against his will with anti psychotic medication was
reversed. The state may apply to the Louisiana Supreme Court for a modification of the stay of execution if Perry regains his sanity without antipsychotic drugs.
In this landmark case, the trial court found the defendant was competent to be executed but ordered the medical staff of the Louisiana Department of Corrections to administer medication forcibly to keep him competent to be executed.
State v. Perry (1992)
Singleton v. Norris - year?
2003
Singleton v. Norris - court?
8th Circuit Court of Appeals
In Singleton v. Norris, Mr. Singleton was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. In 1997, he was placed on involuntary antipsychotic medication after a medication review panel unanimously agreed that he posed a danger to himself and others. What did he argue?
Mr. Singleton argued that his due process constitutional rights were violated once his stay of execution was lifted because involuntary medication rendering him competent to be executed would lead to his ultimate execution which was not in his best medical interest.
He also argued that forced medication, in light of
State v. Perry, constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
In Singleton v. Norris, Mr. Singleton was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. In 1997, he was placed on involuntary antipsychotic medication after a medication review panel unanimously agreed that he posed a danger to himself and others. He argued that forced medication, in light of State v. Perry, constituted cruel and unusual punishment. What did the 8th circuit hold? (2)
- Forced medication of a mentally ill inmate under the Harper standard does not violate due process once an
execution date is set. - A State does not violate the 8th Amendment’s ban
prohibiting execution of an “insane” inmate when competency to be executed is gained through appropriate medical care.
Estelle v. Smith - year?
1981
Estelle v. Smith - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
Following this Texan’s indictment for murder, Dr. Grigson interviewed him in order to assess his competence to stand trial, despite the fact that the issue of competency had not been raised by the defense, his defense was unaware that the court was ordering an evaluation, and did not know that Dr. Grigson proposed to interview the defendant. Landmark case?
Estelle v. Smith (1981)
In Estelle v. Smith (1981), in order to impose the death penalty, the jury must find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant would be that dangerous. The jury made the future dangerousness finding in Smith’s case based on the testimony of Dr. Grigson. Smith appealed because Dr. Grigson’s testimony was based on an interview done to evaluate competency without the awareness of the defense. What Amendments were violated? (2)
(1) It violates the privilege against self-incrimination (5th Amendment) to introduce at a capital sentence proceeding the results of a psychiatric interview conducted without advising the defendant that he had a right to remain silent and that anything said during the interview could be used against him at a capital sentence proceeding.
(2) violates the defendant’s right to counsel as guaranteed by the 6th Amendment.
Barefoot v. Estelle - year?
1983
Barefoot v. Estelle - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
This defendant was convicted of capital murder in Texas. Dr. Grigson presented testimony to the jury on the probability that the defendant would “constitute a continuing threat to society.” The testimony was introduced in the form of a response to hypothetical questions which assumed facts that had been proven related to the defendant. He appealed to the USSC, what was the holding?
The Supreme Court again rejected Barefoot’s contention and the AP A amicus brief that psychiatrists could not predict violence sufficiently to allow the jury to hear such opinions.
The Court reasoned that to reject psychiatric testimony predicting dangerousness would call into question other contexts in which prediction of future behavior is routinely made.
Ake v. Oklahoma - year?
1985
Ake v. Oklahoma - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
In Ake v. Oklahoma, the trial court judge denied Mr. Ake’s request for a sanity evaluation. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the trial court’s denial of a defense psychiatric expert. What did the USSC hold?
The Supreme Court ruled that a state must provide an indigent criminal defendant with free psychiatric assistance in preparing an insanity defense if the defendant’s sanity at the time of the
crime is seriously in question.
Since Mr. Ake was denied access to a psychiatrist, the case was reversed and a new trial ordered.
The decision in Ake v. Oklahoma is based on what Amendment?
14th Amendment’s guarantee of due process of law.
Payne v. Tennessee - year?
1991
Payne v. Tennessee - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
In Payne v. Tennessee, Mr. Payne murdered a mother and her daughter, the son survived. The grandmother testified on the son’s experience. Why did Mr. Payne argue that his 8th Amendment right had been violated?
The 8th Amendment held that evidence and argument relating to the victim and the impact of the victim’s death on the victim’s family are per se inadmissible at a capital sentence hearing.
In Payne v. Tennessee, Mr. Payne murdered a mother and her daughter, the son survived. The grandmother testified on the son’s experience. What did the USSC say about the 8th Amendment?
The Eighth Amendment erects no per se bar prohibiting a capital sentencing jury from considering “victim impact” evidence relating to the victim’s personal characteristics and the emotional impact of the murder on the victim’s family, or precluding a prosecutor from arguing such
evidence at a capital sentence hearing.
Which landmark case about victim impact statements violated the doctrine of stare decisis?
Payne v. Tennessee (1991)
Baxstrom v. Herold - year?
1960
Baxstrom v. Herold - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
In Baxstrom v. Herold, Baxstrom served a sentence in a NY prison. During this time, he was transferred to a state hospital as “insane.” At the conclusion of his sentence, he was certified in need of ongoing psychiatric care and was held at the same maximum security institution. The state court dismissed Baxstrom’s writ of habeas corpus and request for transfer to a civil hospital. What did the USSC hold?
Mr. Baxstrom was denied equal protection
because he was not granted a jury review of civil commitment that was available to all other persons
civilly committed in New York.
In addition, equal protection was denied by his commitment to an institution maintained by the Department of Corrections beyond the expiration of his prison term without a judicial determination that he would be dangerous to others in a civil mental hospital.
What landmark case presents this issue: What commitment procedures are required for a prisoner at the expiration of his criminal sentence to keep him in a maximum security psychiatric hospital?
Baxstrom v. Herold (1960)
In Baxstrom v. Herold, what was Mr. Baxstrom denied?
Equal protection
1) because he was not granted a jury review of civil commitment
2) by his commitment to an institution maintained by the Department of Corrections beyond the expiration of his prison term without a judicial determination that he would be dangerous to others in a civil mental hospital.
“Operation _______” in New York State was the substantial emptying of the hospital for the “criminally insane” with the resulting classic research on the recidivism of dangerous conduct in this population by Henry Steadman in the 1960s. This study showed marked
over prediction of violence by psychiatrists.
Baxstrom
Vitek v. Jones - year?
1980
Vitek v. Jones - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
In Vitek v. Jones, Mr. Jones was placed in solitary confinement and set his mattress on fire. He was transferred to a psych hospital. He challenged the state statute permitting the transfer of prisoners to a mental hospital when there was a medical finding of mental illness and inability to receive proper treatment in a penal complex. The federal District Court declared the statute unconstitutional because it violated what?
Due Process
In Vitek v. Jones, Mr. Jones was placed in solitary confinement and set his mattress on fire. He was transferred to a psych hospital. He challenged the state statute permitting the transfer of prisoners to a mental hospital when there was a medical finding of mental illness and inability to receive proper treatment in a penal complex. The federal District Court declared the statute unconstitutional because it violated Due Process. What necessary safeguards were articulated? (4)
(1) adequate notice
(2) an adversary hearing before an independent decision maker
(3) a written finding
(4) availability of legal counsel.
This case enunciated the due process necessary for transfer of prisoners to a psychiatric hospital.
Vitek v. Jones (1980)
Which landmark case avoided the “tight to treatment” issue, and limited its analysis to confinement and “every man’s constitutional right to liberty?”
O’Connor v. Donaldson (1975)
O’Connor v. Donaldson - year?
1975
O’Connor v. Donaldson - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
In O’Connor v. Donaldson, Mr. Donaldson was committed to Florida’s state hospital for 15 yrs for “care, maintenance, and treatment.” Issue for the USSC: Can a state involuntarily commit a non-dangerous individual capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible
family members or friends? What was the holding?
“There is still no constitutional basis for confining such persons involuntarily if they are dangerous to no one and can live safely in freedom .
Addington v. Texas - year?
1979
Addington v. Texas - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
In Addington v. Texas, Mr. Addington’s mother filed a petition for his indefinite commitment. The state trial court instructed the jury to determine whether Addington was
mentally ill and required hospitalization for his welfare and protection or protection of others. What was the standard of proof asked by the trial court?
“Clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence”
In Addington v. Texas, Mr. Addington’s mother filed a petition for his indefinite commitment. The state trial court instructed the jury to determine whether Addington was
mentally ill and required hospitalization for his welfare and protection or protection of others. Standard of proof: “clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence.” Addington contended that the trial court should have employed what standard of proof?
Beyond a reasonable doubt
In Addington v. Texas, Mr. Addington’s mother filed a petition for his indefinite commitment. The state trial court instructed the jury to use the standard of proof “clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence.” Addington contended that the trial court should have employed beyond a reasonable doubt. What did the Texas Court of Appeals hold?
Agreed with Addington on the standard of proof.
In Addington v. Texas, Mr. Addington’s mother filed a petition for his indefinite commitment. The state trial court instructed the jury to use the standard of proof “clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence.” Addington contended that the trial court should have employed beyond a reasonable doubt. The Texas Court of Appeals agreed with Addington. What did the Texas Supreme Court hold?
The Texas Supreme Court reversed, and reinstated the trial court’s judgment concluding that a preponderance of the evidence standard satisfied due process.
What landmark case addressed the issue: What standard of proof is required by the 14th amendment in a civil
commitment hearing?
Addington v. Texas (1979)
In Addington v. Texas (1979), what did the USSC hold about the standard of proof is required by the 14th amendment in a civil commitment hearing?
Clear & Convincing standard of proof is the constitutional minimum required in a civil commitment proceeding.
The “middle path” of clear and convincing struck a fair balance between the rights of the individual and legitimate
state concerns.
In Addington v. Texas (1979), greater than preponderance of evidence necessary to protect from what 2 things?
1) loss of liberty
2) stigma
In Addington v. Texas (1979), less than beyond a reasonable doubt required because? (3)
(parens patliae interests)
1) Commitment not punitive in nature
2) Layers of professional review and opportunities for release
3) Uncertainties of psychiatric diagnosis, it may imposed a burden the state cannot meet and thereby erect an unreasonable barrier to needed medical tx
Parham v. JL and JR - year?
1979
Parham v. JL and JR - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
What landmark case addressed the issue: What constitutional process is due a minor child whose parents or guardian seek state administered institutional care for a child?
Parham v. JL and JR (1979)
This case established the constitutional minimum concerning the civil commitment of minors.
Parham v. JL and JR (1979)
In Parham v. JL and JR, what did the USSC say about the need for a formal adversarial hearing prior to a voluntary admission?
No formal adversarial hearing is necessary prior to a voluntary admission unless required by state law.
The Supreme Court articulated the need for a “neutral fact finder” to determine whether the child is properly placed and whether there is a continuing need for commitment.
“The mode and procedure of medical diagnostic procedures is not the business of judges.”
The Court emphasized the need for an interview of the child and the use of all available collateral sources.
Zinermon v. Burch - year?
1990
Zinermon v. Burch - court?
U.S. Supreme Court
In Zinermon v. Burch, Burch was found wandering along a Florida highway, he signed a voluntary admission to a local private psych hospital, stayed 3 days and then was transferred to a state hospital where he signed the consent forms for admission. He stayed 5 months. Issue?
Can a claim of incompetence to sign a psychiatric admission form be brought in Federal court, or is a state common law tort remedy adequate to protect one’s due process rights?
Can a claim of incompetence to sign a psychiatric admission form be brought in Federal
court, or is a state common law tort remedy adequate to protect one’s due process rights? Landmark case?
Zinermon v. Burch (1990)
In Zinermon v. Burch, what did the USSC find?
The deprivation of liberty in Burch was
not unpredictable nor unauthorized, finding a post-deprivation state tort remedy insufficient. “The
very nature of mental illness makes it foreseeable that a person needing mental health care will be
unable to understand any proffered explanation and disclosure of the subject matter.”
In this landmark case the Court suggests in dicta there should be procedures to screen competence for voluntary admissions
Zinermon v. Burch (1990)
In Zinermon v. Burch (1990), Mr. Burch sued in federal court, alleging he had been incompetent to consent to his own admission and was therefore deprived of what?
Due process of law, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment.
In Zinermon v. Burch (1990), the state argued that Burch had stated no claim, because the actions of the employees did not reflect state policy, and were random, unauthorized violations of the Florida admission process. What was the USSC holding?
The US Supreme Court held that Mr. Burch was entitled to
raise his claim in federal court, rather than having to rely on a state court post-deprivation tort remedy which would provide after-the-fact relief (usually money damages), rather than prevention of the harm.
They reasoned “the very nature of mental illness makes it foreseeable that a person needing mental health care will be unable to understand any proffered explanation and disclosure of the subject matter.”
The decision in this landmark case states holds
that the state must investigate lesser restrictive forms of treatment, or other alternative courses of treatment, prior to involuntary hospitalization.
Lake v. Cameron (1966)
Lake v. Cameron - year?
1966
Lake v. Cameron - court?
Washington D.C. Court of Appeals
Lake v. Cameron - Washington D.C. Court of Appeals decision?
A patient cannot be held involuntarily in a psychiatric hospital, if there is some less restrictive treatment alternative to keep her safe.
Lessard v. Schmidt - year?
1972
Lessard v. Schmidt - court?
Federal District Court
Lessard v. Schmidt - facts?
Alberta Lessard was placed on a legal hold in Wisconsin. The psychiatrist at the inpatient unit dx’d her with schizophrenia and recommended permanent commitment. Lessard was not infomred of the proceedings.
Lessard v. Schmidt - The suit was filed under what claim?
42 USC 1983
Lessard v. Schmidt - Ms. Lessard alleged that the Wisconsin procedure for involuntarily civil commitment denied her of what?
Due process of law.
What landmark case is responsible for the criminalization of civil commitment?
Lessard v. Schmidt
Lessard v. Schmidt set the burden of proof on the state for civil commitment at what standard?
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Lessard v. Schmidt put in place procedural safe guards similar to criminal commitments, including: (6)
1) Privilege against self-incrimination (5th amendment right); warning of no need to talk to psychiatrist
2) Right to counsel
3) Right to effective and timely notice of charges justifying detention
4) Right to a jury trial
5) Exclusion of hearsay evidence
6) Right to be present and cross examine witnesses
What landmark case outlined the safeguards for hypnotically refreshed testimony?
State v. Hurd
In State v. Hurd, what safeguards for hypnotically refreshed testimony were adopted? (4)
1) only the hypnotist and the subject should be present
2) any information given to the hypnotist by law enforcement personnel should be in writing
3) hypnotic sessions should be conducted only by licensed psychiatrists and psychologists trained in hypnosis
4) the hypnotist should be independent of the prosecution and defense
5) all contacts between the hypnotist and subject should be recorded
Which Amendments were violated in Rock v. Arkansas?
5th, 6th, and 14th
In which landmark case did the California Supreme Court hold that a witness may only testify to matters stated before hypnosis?
People v. Shirley
Which landmark case banned a per se rule barring hypnotically refreshed testimony by a defendant?
Rock v. Arkansas
Which landmark case raised the issue of suppression of the hypnotically refreshed identification of a defendant?
State v. Hurd
Which landmark case established the standard for competency in the U.S.?
Dusky v. U.S.
Which landmark case proposed procedural guidelines for court testimony about hypnosis?
State v. Hurd
In Cooper v. Oklahoma, Cooper was charged with what offense?
First Degree Murder
In Cooper v. Oklahoma, at the trial court level which side bore the burden of showing incompetence by clear and convincing evidence?
Defense
In Cooper v. Oklahoma, the Court noted that the decision in this case was in complete accord with its ruling in what landmark case?
Addington v. Texas, which stated that Due Process required the state to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that a person met the criteria for involuntary civil commitment
That ruling protected an individual’s fundamental liberty interest, while the ruling in this case safeguards the
fundamental right not to be required to stand trial while incompetent.
In this landmark case, the issue at hand was whether the state statute violated the 14th Amendment due process by requiring the defendant to prove incompetence by clear and convincing evidence.
Cooper v. Oklahoma
The standard of proof “clear and convincing evidence” is used for what types of cases?
1) termination of parental rights
2) deportation
3) denaturalization
4) civil commitment
The general acceptance test comes from what landmark case?
Frye v. U.S.
In Cooper v. Oklahoma, the Court articulated the state is permitted to presume a defendant is competent and to place the burden on the defendant to prove incompetence by what standard of proof?
Preponderance of the evidence
Which landmark case decided that the Daubert standard applies to non-scientific testimony?
Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael
Wilson v. U.S. involved which 2 Amendments?
The trial judge said Wilson was CST in spite of his permanent retrograde amnesia. Wilson appealed
his conviction on the basis that his amnesia made him incompetent to stand trial.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial judge for more extensive post trial findings on the question of whether the appellant’s loss of memory did in fact deprive him of a fair trial (5th Amendment in federal court/due process) and effective assistance of counsel (6th Amendment).
Which landmark case established the standard to plead guilty or represent self as the same as the Dusky standard?
Godinez v. Moran
The U.S. Supreme Court majority rejected the notion that competence to plead guilty or to waive the right to counsel must be measured by a standard that is higher than (or even different from) the Dusky standard.
Which landmark case designated the judge as the gatekeeper?
Daubert v. Merrell Dow
The Dyas test of admissibility was applied the applicable testimony in which landmark case?
Ibn-Tamas v. U.S.
District of Columbia: adopted a three-part Dyas test for determining whether to admit expert testimony: 1) the subject matter must be distinctively related to some science, profession, business, or occupation as to be beyond the ken of the average layman; 2) the witness must have sufficient skill, knowledge, or experience in the field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth; and 3) expert testimony is inadmissible if the state of the pertinent art or scientific knowledge does not permit a reasonable opinion to be asserted even by an expert.
In Ibn-Tamas v. U.S., the trial court refused to permit
expert testimony on “battered women”, in part because it would “invade the province of the jury, who are the sole
judges of the facts and the triers of the credibility of the witnesses, including the defendant.”
The D.C. Circuit Court requested additional investigation into whether Dr. Walker’s testimony would invade the province of the jury regarding what two things?
1) the ultimate issue
2) “beyond the ken” of the jurors.
The D.C. Court of Appeals stated that there are two ways in which an expert can preempt the jury’s function. The expert can either speak directly to the ultimate issue, or can speak to matters in which “the jury is just as competent as the expert to consider and weigh the evidence and draw the necessary conclusions” / “the matter is not beyond the ken of the average layman.”
In Frendak v. U.S., did the court abandon the Whalen rile?
No
Under this rule, the trial judge was required to interpose an insanity defense when there was sufficient question as to the defendant’s mental responsibility at the time of
the crime. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals abandoned the rule entirely in 1991 in view of the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984.
Whalen
What landmark case found that a trial judge may not force an insanity defense on a defendant found CST if the defendant intelligently and voluntarily decides to forego the defense.
Frendak v. U.S.
In what case did the Supreme Court prohibit a state from requiring a defendant to accept an attorney when he wished to instead represent himself?
Faretta v. California
In Jones v. U.S., Mr. Jones was found NGRI for what?
Attempted shoplifting of a jacket
Jones v. U.S. was later clarified in what case?
Foucha v. Louisiana
In what landmark case did the Supreme Court hold that it was constitutional to treat insanity acquittees as a separate class?
Jones v. U.S.
In Jones v. U.S., the Supreme Court recognized that due process requires that the “nature and duration of confinement bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed” (Jackson v. Indiana, 1972), the Court supported what type of commitment?
An indefinite commitment based on the insanity acquittal alone.
What landmark case stated “nature and duration of confinement bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed?”
Jackson v. Indiana, 1972
In Jones v. U.S., Mr. Jones was not entitled to his involuntary commitment being proven by clear and convincing evidence. What not?
Mr. Jones was charged with attempted shoplifting of a coat and was found NGRI. After a year, longer than the max term he could have been convicted, he demanded on due process grounds that he be released or at least recommited pursuant to the applicable civil commitment statue (clear and convincing evidence).
The Court supported an indefinite commitment based on
the insanity acquittal alone. In the Court’s words, “There simply is no necessary correlation between severity of the offense and length of time necessary for recovery. The length of the acquittee’s hypothetical criminal sentence therefore is irrelevant to the purposes of his commitment.”
In what 2 landmark cases did the Supreme Court state that the length of confinement of an individual found NGRI was unrelated to the potential sentence for the original crime?
Jones v. U.S.
Foucha v. Louisiana
What language from Jones v. U.S. was interpreted in Foucha v. Louisiana?
That an insanity acquittee may not be held unless he
is both mentally ill and dangerous.
In Foucha v. Louisiana, was the Louisiana Supreme Court’s holding different than that of the USSC?
Yes. The judgment of the Louisiana Supreme Court upholding Foucha’s continued confinement
was reversed by the USSC. The Court stated that Foucha’s due process rights were violated because the Louisiana statute allowed an insanity acquittee to be committed to a
mental institution until he is able to demonstrate that he is not dangerous to himself or others, even
though he does not suffer from any mental illness.
In Foucha v. Louisiana, Mr. Foucha’s release was mandated by what Amendment?
Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment
This landmark case established that confining an insanity acquittee with no mental illness violates due process.
Foucha v. Louisiana
How did the Supreme Court differentiate Jones v. U.S. from Jackson v. Indiana?
Mr. Jackson (MR and IST) was a pre-trial detainee and therefore had not been sentenced for any crime.
In Jackson v. Indiana, what rights were violated?
equal protection and due process rights were violated
What landmark case found that a person who is IST can only be held for a reasonable period of time to determine whether he will become CST.
Jackson v. Indiana
In Wilson v. U.S., the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case for more extensive post-trial findings on whether memory loss had deprived the defendant of rights associated with which constitutional amendments?
5th (due process because he was in federal court) and 6th (right to effective assistance of counsel).
*If he had been charged in a state court, he would have been guaranteed due process through the 14th Amendment, which extended due process requirements to the states.
According to Jackson v. Indiana, the accused may only be held long enough to determine what?
Probability for competency restoration
In Wilson v. U.S., the D.C. Circuit of Appeals recommended that what factors be considered?
1) extent to which amnesia affected the defendant’s ability to consult with and assist his lawyer
2) extent to which amnesia affected the defendant’s ability to testify on his own behalf
3) the extent to which the evidence could be extrinsically reconstructed
4) extent to which the prosecution helped with the reconstruction
5) the strength of the prosecution’s overall case against the defendant
6) any other facts and circumstances which would indicate whether or not the defendant had a fair trial
In Jackson v. Indiana, Theon Jackson raised an equal protection argument in which he compared himself to which group of people?
Civilly committed patients
The two components to establish criminal responsibility are?
1) Mens rea (guilty intent, specific intent for crime: premeditation, purposely, knowingly, recklessly)
2) Actus rea (forbidden act, must be voluntary and conscious)
Why were subjects of the Illinois Sexually Dangerous Persons Act, the focus of Allen v. Illinois, not protected from self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment, according to the Supreme Court?
The Court did not consider the proceedings criminal in nature.
All of the following cases deal with testimony at the sentencing phase except? Ake v. Oklahoma Estelle v. Smith Barefoot v. Estelle Ford v. Wainwright Payne v. Tennessee
Ake v. Oklahoma (right to have a psychiatric exam, defendant must be provided a psychiatrist to assist in assessing NGRI defense)
All of the following cases violate stare decisis except? Payne v. Tennessee Rock v. Arkansas Powell v. Texas Roper v. Simmons Atkins v. Virginia
Rock v. Arkansas
Powell v. Texas
Payne v. Tennessee allowed for victim impact statements. It violated the doctrine of stare decisis. What two cases were overruled?
Booth v. Maryland: victim statements violate 8th Amendment
South Carolina v. Gathers: Prosecutor’s remarks violated the 8th Amendment
Payne v. Tennessee allowed for victim impact statements. It violated the doctrine of stare decisis. The Court decided that what Amendment was not violated?
The 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment)
Which constitutional issue did the Supreme Court primarily cite in Ake v. Oklahoma?
Due process (right to have a psychiatric exam, defendant must be provided a psychiatrist to assist in assessing NGRI defense)
Discussed Dr. Lenore Walker’s research on battered women
Ibn-Tamas v. U.S.
Daubert standard applies to non-scientific testimony
Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael
Clarified that in SVP cases there is no requirement of total or complete lack of control
Kansas v. Crane
Established that amnesia alone cannot deem a defendant incompetent
Wilson v. U.S.
Discussed several reasons why a defendant may prefer not to plead NGRI
Frendak v. U.S.
Psychiatrist can speak to dangerousness based on hypothetical alone
Barefoot v. Estelle
Introduced the “product test” for insanity
Durham v. U.S.
The accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act is the product of mental disease or defect.
Confirmed the “abuse of discretion” standard for courts of appeal to evaluate trial court’s reliability determination
General Electric v. Joiner
Insanity evaluations must assess nature & quality and wrongfulness
M’Naghten
Defendant’s right to testify on their own behalf extends to hypnotically refreshed testimony
Rock v. Arkansas
What is the standard for reviewing the trial judge admission of expert testimony under Daubert guidelines by appellate courts?
“Abuse of discretion”
“Abuse of discretion” is the standard for reviewing the trial judge admission of expert testimony under ______ guidelines by appellate courts.
Daubert
In O’Connor v. Donaldson, what did the Supreme Court say about the right to treatment?
The Court did not address whether Mr. Donaldson had a right to treatment.
What landmark case held that a state cannot constitutionally confine without more a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving by himself or with the help of willing and responsible family member or friends?
O’Connor v. Donaldson
In what landmark case did the Supreme Court hold that the appropriate standard of proof for civil commitment was clear and convincing evidence?
Addington v. Texas
The majority stated “One who is suffering from a debilitating mental illness and is in need of treatment is neither wholly at liberty nor free of stigma.”
Addington v. Texas
In Addington v. Texas, the majority cited what Amendment in their holding?
14th Amendment
In Addington v. Texas, the Texas Supreme Court held that the appropriate standard of proof for involuntary civil commitment was what?
“a preponderance of the evidence”
In Addington v. Texas, the Texas Supreme Court held that the appropriate standard of proof for involuntary civil commitment was “a preponderance of the evidence.” The USSC did not agree - why not?
The standard of proof must be greater than preponderance because the need to protect the individual
from stigma and loss of liberty are greater concerns than in the average civil trial.
What facts are required in a Vitek hearing?
1) Adequate written notice
2) Legal counsel
3) Adversarial hearing before an independent decision-maker
4) written findings
What landmark case addressed the issue: Does the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause require a prisoner to have a hearing before
he is transferred to a psychiatric hospital.
Vitek v. Jones
You are employed by a state forensic hospital. You receive a call from the DoC notifying you that they have an inmate w mental illness whose needs cannot be net in prison. They plan to transfer him to you. What do you do?
Inquire if there has been a Vitek hearing regarding the proposed transfer.
1) Adequate written notice
2) Legal counsel
3) Adversarial hearing before an independent decision-maker
4) written findings
In this landmark case, the involuntary transfer of an inmate to a mental hospital during their incarceration was found to impinge on a liberty interest that is protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Vitek v. Jones
In this landmark case, the USSC held that the extension of an inmate’s prison term at the end of his criminal sentence by commitment to a mental hospital violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Baxstrom v. Herold
1) he was not granted a jury review of civil commitment that was available to all other persons civilly committed in NY
2) he was committed to an institution maintained by the DoC beyond the expiration of his prison term without a judicial determination that he would be dangerous to others in a civil mental hospital
The minimum evidentiary standard that states must use in civil commitment proceedings is?
Clear and convincing evidence
What are valid uses of substance abuse/dependence as a defense? (4)
1) withdrawal delirium
2) Involuntary intoxication
3) lingering psychosis
4) pathological intoxication
When is the disclosure of information regarding substance abuse tx permitted without a specific release of information signed by the patient?
Criminal justice system if referred by the court
What are the elements of capacity?
1) understanding the nature and seriousness of the dx’d illness
2) understanding the possible benefits and risks of the proposed tx
3) understanding the possible benefits and risks of reasonable alternatives to the proposed tx
Using the reasonable medical practitioner standard, failure to perform an informed consent would be considered what?
Negligence
What standard for informed consent would likely require an expert witness in malpractice proceedings?
The reasonable medical practitioner standard
What standard for informed consent would not necessarily require an expert witness in malpractice proceedings?
The materiality of the information standard
What is the currently held standard for informed consent?
The materiality of the information standard
Which case determined that the appropriate standard for informed consent was regarding the “materiality of the information?”
Canterbury v. Spence (1972)
Which case discusses the duty to disclose the consequences of refusing a medical tx or test as a part of the informed consent process?
Truman v. Thomas (1980)
Which case determined that being held involuntarily in a state institution was an inherently coercive institutional environment, limiting an adequately voluntary informed consent?
Kaimowitz v. Michigan DMH (1973)
What neuropsych test is a test of executive functioning which specifically measures novel problem solving and mental flexibility?
Wisconsin Card Sorting test
Intelligence tests such as the WAIS-III provide standard scores that have been corrected for?
Age
In People v. Kelly, California adopted what standard?
Frye
In the Daubert case, the decision was regarding the interpretation of what?
Federal Rues of Evidence 702
Which case opined that the standard for appellate review was “an abuse of discretion?”
General Electric Co. v. Joiner
The Northwestern Juvenile Project (Teplin, 2002) highlighted what key findings? (4)
1) majority of juveniles met criteria for one or more psychiatric disorders
2) substance use was the most common disorder found in juveniles
3) females have higher rates of psychiatric disorders than males
4) 93% of juveniles had been exposed to one or more trauma
In Roper v. Simmons (2005), what reasons were cited as reasons to abolish the death penalty for juvenile offenders under the 8th amendment? (3)
1) Juveniles are less mature and have less sense of responsibility than adults
2) adolescents are more susceptible to external influences such as peer pressure
3) personality traits in adolescents are less fixed than in adults
Regarding the consistency of memory of traumatic experiences, higher consistency is linked with what?
The more severe the trauma
What is the order of a legal citation? (3)
Volume number, name of periodical, page number
% - beyond a reasonable doubt?
> 90%
% - clear and convincing?
70-80%
% - preponderance of the evidence?
51%
% - probable cause?
< 50%
4 Ds of negligence?
1) Duty
2) Dereliction (breach of duty)
3) Direct causation
4) Damage that results from breach of duty
Mens rea - When the defendant’s “conscious objective was to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result.”
Purposely
Mens rea - When the defendant “is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.”
Knowingly
Mens rea - When the defendant consciously disregards a substantial and unjustified risk” such that “considering the nature and purpose of the defendant’s conduct and the circumstances known to him,” and the disregard of the risk “involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation.”
Recklessly
Mens rea - When a defendant “should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk” but inadvertently fails to take into account the risk as would a “reasonable person.”
Negligently
Mens rea - Specific intent? (2)
Purposely and knowingly
Mens rea - General intent? (3)
Purposely, knowingly, and recklessly
What are examples of affirmative defenses?
1) Self-defense
2) Duress
3) Insanity
4) Automatism
5) Entrapment (the police induced him to commit a crime
6) Necessity (ex: stranded in the snow, break into a vacant cabin to survive)
Affirmative defense ex: the police induced him to commit a crime. What is this called?
Entrapment
Standard of proof in civil trials?
preponderance of the evidence
Standard of proof in civil commitment hearings?
Clear and convincing
Standard of proof in termination of parental rights?
Clear and convincing
Standard of proof in criminal trials?
Beyond a reasonable doubt
What amendment provides right to assistance of counsel?
6th Amendment
What Amendment was relevant in Ford v. Wainwright?
8th Amendment (Cruel and unusual punishment) - cruel and unusual to punish the insane!
What type of dismissal by a court is for insufficient cause for action?
Demurrer
Lawyers informally define a demurrer as a defendant saying “So what?” to the pleading.
What does in dicta mean?
Expression in a court’s opinion which go beyond the facts before the court and therefore individual views of the author. They are not binding in subsequent cases
What points towards malingering?
Recognition memory worse than recall memory
OR
Recall memory worse than recognition memory?
Recognition memory worse than recall memory
SSI or SSDI? Based on needs determination?
SSI
SSI or SSDI? Administered by the Social Security Administration?
SSI and SSDI
SSI or SSDI? Work-related injury?
Neither
How can a substance use disorder qualify for SSI?
If the use results in an independent dx of another disorder. Ex: Depression or anxiety disorders or medical sequelae of substance use
In which landmark case did the USSC state that an inmate’s equal protection rights were violated?
Baxstrom v. Herald
At the conclusion of Baxstrom’s prison sentence he was kept at the state hospital. His request to be transferred to a civil hospital was denied by the state.
Equal protection rights were violated b/c:
1) He was not granted a jury review
2) There had been no determination by a civil mental hospital of his dangerousness to others
What is the rule about competency to testify for minors?
Rule 601 of the Federal Rules of Evidence abolished the rule that children be shown to be competent to testify. The rule provides that “every person is competent to be a witness.”
All of the following cases dealt with psychiatric testimony at the sentencing phase except: Ake v. Oklahoma Estelle v. Smith Barefoot v. Estelle Ford v. Wainwright
Ford v. Wainwright (8th Amendment prohibits the execution of the insane).
Which landmark case held that execution of the mentally retarded is unconstitutional?
Atkins v. Virginia
The use of victim impact statements does not violate which amendment?
8th
In State v. Perry, what court found that involuntary treatment with medication to restore competency to be executed represented cruel and unusual punishment?
Louisiana Supreme Court (1992)
In Atkins v. Virginia, the USSC held that execution of the mentally retarded was unconstitutional because public opinion had shifted and what other reason?
Mentally retarded inmates did not have the same degree of culpability as non-retarded offenders.
“Today society views mentally retarded offenders as categorically less culpable than the average criminal.”
Mentally retarded persons frequently know the difference
between right and wrong and are competent to stand trial, but, by definition, they have diminished capacities to understand and process information, to communicate, to abstract from mistakes and learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understand others’ reactions.
In Singleton v. Norris, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held what?
Forced medication of a mentally ill inmate under the Harper standard does not violate due process once an execution date is set.
In Roper v. Simmons, the Missouri Supreme Court directly challenged the USSC’s ruling in what case that held that the execution of juveniles age 16 or older at the time of the offense did not violate the 8th Amendment?
Stanford v. Kentucky
In what landmark case did the US Supreme Court state that one reason that the juvenile death penalty was
unconstitutional was because juveniles were less morally culpable than the “worst offenders” and therefore the death penalty was not warranted.
Roper v. Simmons
In Panetti v. Quarterman, what standard did the USSC articulate for evaluating competency to be executed?
The Court did not specify a specific standard for competency to be executed and remanded the case so that additional expert witness evidence could be considered.
The US Supreme Court held that the Fifth Circuit employed an improperly restrictive test of competency to be executed when it considered this defendant’s
claim of incompetency.
Panetti
The district court held that Panetti was competent to be executed because he knew he had committed two murders, that he would be executed, and that the reason the state has given for that execution was his commission of those murders. On appeal, Panetti argued that the Eighth Amendment forbids the execution of a prisoner who lacks a rational understanding of the State’s reason for execution.
The ethical principle that allows for decisions to rest on the greatest good for the greatest number?
Utilitarianism
During a forensic evaluation the individual you are evaluating refers to you as “doctor” and says that he really appreciates that you are there to help him deal with depression. This phenomenon is called?
Slippage
“Therapeutic misconception”
In the landmark case that effectively overruled Seiling v. Eyman, the court identified what?
The capacity to waiver counsel requires the same level of capacity as the capacity to stand trial.
The U.S. Supreme Court majority rejected the notion that competence to plead guilty or to waive the right to counsel must be measured by a standard that is higher than (or even different from) the Dusky standard.
What landmark case that effectively overruled Seiling v. Eyman?
Godinez v. Moran (1993)
According to Cooper v. Oklahoma, a defendant may be presumed competent but can apply what standard to prove incompetence?
Preponderance of the evidence
Which landmark case established a principle that stated that incompetent defendants can be hospitalized only for a reasonable period of time to determine whether restoration is likely?
Jackson v. Indiana
What is the difference between the standard for competence to waive counsel and competence to plead guilty?
Same standard.
The U.S. Supreme Court majority rejected the notion that competence to plead guilty or to waive the right to counsel must be measured by a standard that is higher than (or even different from) the Dusky standard (Godinez v. Moran).
Which landmark case established that a defendant may be incompetent to represent himself and denied the right to self-represent (even if he is found CST)?
Indiana v. Edwards
Edwards was found CST but denied the right to self-represent.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Constitution permits a State to limit a defendant’s right to self-representation by insisting upon representation by counsel at trial on the ground that the defendant lacks the mental capacity to conduct his trial defense unless represented.
In Rex v. Arnold (1724), the jury was given this explanation of the insanity defense, “A man must be totally deprived of his understanding and memory, so as not to know what he is doing, no more than an infant, a brute, or a wild beast.” What standard did this create?
“Wild beast” standard. More restrictive than the M’Naughten standard.
The concept of “irresistible impulse” is also known as: (3)
1) inability to refrain (policeman at the elbow)
2) the volitional arm
3) inability to confirm conduct to the requirements of the law
“If the defendant did know the nature and quality of his act and that it was wrong, was he unable, because of mental disease or defect, to adhere to the right?”
Irresistible impulse test
Legal doctrine implying plaintiff need only show a particular result occurred and would not have occurred but for negligence.
Res ipsa loquitur
Rare in psychiatry. Ex: surgical instrument left inside the abdomen
Res ipsa loquitur can be applied only when what 4 conditions are met?
1) Harm rarely occurs in absence of negligence
2) Harm caused by means within defendant’s exclusive control
3) Plaintiff did not contribute to harm
4) Defendant has exclusive access to facts about harm
Define therapeutic waiver
The patient will waive their right to be informed.
define therapeutic privilege
Refers to an uncommon situation whereby a physician may be excused from revealing information to a patient when disclosing it would pose a serious psychological threat, so serious a threat as to be medically contraindicated.
What case held “A person involuntarily detained in a state facility cannot give legally adequate consent to an innovative or experimental surgical procedure on the brain where the danger is high and the risks incapable of assessment.”
Kaimowitz v. Michigan Department of Mental Health
In this landmark case regarding sex offender laws, the USSC found that the defendant was detained on a new finding of fact not included within the original criminal charge.
Specht v. Patterson
In this landmark case, the defendant was convicted under the Sex Offenders Act, which required an individual to undergo a psychiatric evaluation to determine if the person was “treatable.”
Specht v. Patterson
In Specht v. Patterson, the defendant was convicted under the Sex Offenders Act, which required an individual to undergo a psychiatric evaluation to determine if the person was “treatable.” USSC holding?
Held that the 14th Amendment due process clause was violated by not giving Specht the right to be present with counsel, to confront the evidence against him, to cross-examine witnesses, and to offer his own evidence and be heard.
In what landmark case did the US Supreme Court hold that Congress had the authority under the Necessary
and Proper Clause of the Constitution to civilly commit sex offenders at the completion of their incarceration?
U.S. v. Comstock
The defendant in this landmark case protested that two court ordered psychiatric examinations violated his 5th
amendment.
Allen v. Illinois
In what landmark case did the USSC hold that proceedings under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act are not criminal within the meaning of the Fifth
Amendment’s guarantees against compulsory self incrimination?
Allen v. Illinois
This landmark case strongly reflects trends established by Washington State’s Community Protection Act (sex offender act - tx takes place after punishment and a personality disorder is sufficient to qualify for a SVP).
Kansas v. Hendricks
What act established the SORNA provisions?
Adam Walsh Child Protection Act
Describe the SORNA provisions (4)
1) Mandates registration of SVP before release from prison or within 3 days if not incarcerated
2) Applies retroactively
3) Makes it a criminal offense to travel outside of state and fail to register
4) Juveniles age 14 and older must register
What are the two legal bases for civil commitment?
Parens patriae (state takes responsibility for those unable to care for themselves.) Police powers (state may utilize its powers on behalf of community to deprive an individual of liberty to protect community and individual.)
In the case of civil commitment, § 1983 claims
generally allege violations of what amendment?
14th Amendment, Due Process rights
In what landmark case did the USSC note “A person who is willing to sign forms but is incapable of making an informed decision is, by the same token, unlikely to benefit from the voluntary patient’s statutory right to request discharge. Such a person thus is endangered of being confined indefinitely without benefit of procedural safeguards.”
Zinermon v. Burch
Mr. Burch was found by police wandering along a Florida highway. He was taken to a mental health facility where he was found to be bloodied, bruised, hallucinating, confused and believed he was “in heaven.” He was transferred to the state hospital and remained there for 5 months. No hearing was held regarding his hospitalization
and treatment.
in Lake v. Cameron, the case was remanded for inquiry into what?
Least restrictive tx alternative
The following cases all involve convicted prisoners rights EXCEPT Barefoot v. Estelle Estelle v. Gamble Vitek v. Jones Baxstrom v. Herold
Barefoot v. Estelle
What were the issues in Payne v. Tennessee? (2)
1) Whether the Eighth Amendment erects a per se bar
prohibiting a capital sentencing jury from considering
victim impact evidence, or precluding a prosecutor
from arguing such evidence at a capital sentencing
hearing.
2) Whether the Court was required to follow its own prior precedents (stare decisis) was also addressed.
The following cases all involve civil commitment EXCEPT Lake v. Cameron O'Connor v. Donaldson Lessard v. Schmidt Estelle v. Gamble Addington v. Texas
Estelle v. Gamble
All of the following cases were decided by the U.S. Supreme Court EXCEPT Powell v. Texas Frye v. U.S. Godinez v. Moran Jones v. U.S. Ake v. Oklahoma
Frye v. U.S.(D.C. Court of Appeals)
The following cases raised equal protection arguments EXCEPT Jackson v. Indiana Baxstrom v. Herold Foucha v. Louisiana Colorado v. Connelly Jones v. U.S.
Colorado v. Connelly (USSC held that no 14th Amendment due process right was violated)
In what landmark case did the defendant attempt to shoplift a jacket and was found NGRI?
Jones v. U.S.
The following cases raised Due Process arguments EXCEPT Jackson v. Indiana Dusky V. U.S. Truman v. Thomas Foucha v. Louisiana Specht v. Patterson
Truman v. Thomas (patient declined pap smear, was never told what it was for “A physician has a duty to disclose all material information to the patient. Breach renders the physician liable for any legally resulting injury.”)
Which case involved a Sixth Amendment issue? Jackson v. Indiana Estelle v. Smith Cooper v. Oklahoma Foucha v. Louisiana State v. Hurd
Estelle v. Smith (right to counsel)
Following Smith’s indictment for murder, Dr. Grigson had interviewed him in order to assess his competence to stand trial. This occurred despite the fact that
Smith’s attorneys had not raised the issue of competency, were unaware that the court was ordering
an evaluation, and did not know that Dr. Grigson proposed to interview Smith.
Which landmark case looked at the issue of level of evidence required for finding incompetence?
Cooper v. Oklahoma
Reasonable to require defendant to prove incompetence by preponderance of the evidence
In Riggins v. Nevada, Riggins was found CST but his lawyer asked the court to suspend his medication to show the jury his unmedicated state. The USSC held that the forced administration of antipsychotic medication during Riggins’ trial violated his
what two Amendment rights?
6th (due process) and 14th (affords the protection to pretrial detainees)
Nevada would have satisfied due process if the prosecution had demonstrated that antipsychotic treatment was medically appropriate and, considering less intrusive alternatives, essential for the sake of Riggins’ own safety or the safety of others.
Mr. Charles Rouse was found NGRI on a misdemeanor weapons charge and subsequently
committed to St. Elizabeths Hospital. The charge carried a one year sentence. After a three year
hospitalization, Rouse petitioned for his release on a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that he
was receiving no treatment. What did the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals hold?
Rouse has a right to treatment since treatment is the purpose of involuntary hospitalization.
The Bazelon Court (D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals) reversed and remanded to the lower court to assess the adequacy of treatment.
An unsupported assertion by an expert witness is called what?
Ipsi dixit
Dusky v. U.S. (competency standard) is to Jackson v. Indiana (MR, IST, appealed under 14th and 8th amendment)
as Durham v. U.S. (insanity standard) is to what landmark case?
Foucha v. Louisiana
“Due process requires that the nature and duration of commitment bear some reasonable relation to the
purpose for which the individual is committed.”
Do you need an independent evaluation by an outside psychiatrist to be considered in a decision to involuntarily medicate a patient to restore competency?
NO
The “materiality of the information” standard of informed consent was first adopted in what case?
Canterbury v. Spence
A majority of states have now adopted the _________ “materiality of the information”
standard rather than the “reasonable medical practitioner” standard of informed consent initially
required in Natanson v. Kline, 1960.
Canterbury v. Spence
No medical experts are necessary to show lack of informed consent under what standard?
Materiality of the information
The “_______” is sometimes referred to as the “reasonable person” standard. It is now used by the majority of
states.
Materialitv of the information standard (patient centered legal standard for disclosure)
Frye v. U.S. was decided by what court and in what year?
D.C. Court of Appeals in 1923
Robinson v. California was based on the 1st Amendment 6th Amendment 8th and 14th Amendments 5th and 6th Amendments Section 1983
8th and 14th Amendments
Judge David Bazelon authored what four opinions?
1) Durham v. U.S.
2) Rouse v. Cameron
3) Lake v. Cameron
4) Washington V. U.S.
In what landmark case did the Supreme Court held that it was constitutional to treat insanity acquittees as a separate class?
Jones v. U.S.
The meaning of _______. was clarified by
Foucha v. Louisiana.
Jones v. U.S.
In what landmark case did the USSC hold that the defendant did not have a right to the standard of
proof provided in Addington v. Texas (1979)?
Jones v. U.S.
The following are relevant to Ake v. Oklahoma EXCEPT
Psychiatric assistance for evaluation of insanity.
Psychiatric assistance for death penalty
evaluation.
Due Process Clause
Fifth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment
Fifth Amendment
The Supreme Court ruled that a state must provide an indigent criminal defendant with free psychiatric assistance in preparing an insanity defense if the defendant’s sanity at the time of the
crime is seriously in question.
Rock v. Arkansas - what Amendments were violated?
14th: guarantees that no one shall be deprived of liberty without Due Process of law, includes a right to be heard and to offer testimony.
5th: every criminal defendant is privileged to testify in his own defense, or to refuse to do so.
6th: assures that testimony of witnesses on behalf
of the defendant is admissible.
Which case held that proceedings under a Sexually Dangerous Persons Act are not criminal within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment's guarantees? Specht v. Patterson Humphrey v. Cady Kansas v. Crane Allen v. Illinois In re Young
Allen v. Illinois
The trial court ordered Mr. Allen to submit to two psychiatric examinations. The state presented the
testimony of the two examining psychiatrists over Allen’s objection that they had elicited information
from him in violation of his privilege against self incrimination.
The California Supreme Court decided hypnotically refreshed testimony of witnesses should be excluded. What exception is allowed?
a defendant’s hypnotically refreshed memories cannot be excluded.
The following constitutional challenges have been made against sexual predator or sexual psychopath laws EXCEPT: Sixth Amendment Fifth Amendment Ex post facto laws Double jeopardy Fourteenth Amendment
Sixth Amendment
Issue: Whether the due process clause of the 14th Amendment is violated by the state Code,
Section 45-2-203, which provides that voluntary intoxication “may not be taken into consideration
in determining the existence of a mental state which is an element of a criminal offense.”
Montana v. Egelhoff
What reasoning in Kaimowitz v. Michigan DMH was later
repeated in the early Massachusetts right to refuse medication cases?
The right to generate ideas [even psychotic ideas] is
protected by the 1st Amendment.
What were the substantive and procedural Due Process issues in Washington v. Harper?
The substantive due process issue is what factual
circumstances must exist before the State may
administer anti-psychotic drugs to a prisoner against
his will.
The procedural due process issue is whether the state’s
non-judicial mechanisms used to determine the facts in
a particular case are sufficient.)
What action did the U.S. Supreme Court take in State v.
Perry?
The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the lower court to review in view of Washington v. Harper.
The criminalization of civil commitment is most obvious in what landmark case? Addington v. Texas Lake v. Cameron In Re Richardson Lessard v. Schmidt Parham v. J.R. and J.L.
Lessard v. Schmidt
Alberta Lessard was picked up by the police who filed an emergency detention form resulting in her involuntary psychiatric hospitalization.
The Comi ruled that patients should
be given: (1) advance notice of a commitment hearing and the basis of the detention; (2) a right to
a jury trial; (3) a right to counsel; (4) privilege against self-incrimination; (5) exclusion of hearsay
evidence; and (6) notice of the substance of the state’s proposed testimony.
In Lessard v. Schmidt, her attorney filed under what Section?
1983
Alberta Lessard was picked up by the police who filed an emergency detention form resulting in her involuntary psychiatric hospitalization.
The Comi ruled that patients should
be given: (1) advance notice of a commitment hearing and the basis of the detention; (2) a right to
a jury trial; (3) a right to counsel; (4) privilege against self-incrimination; (5) exclusion of hearsay
evidence; and (6) notice of the substance of the state’s proposed testimony.
In Re Gault assured juveniles of the following rights EXCEPT Right to adequate notice. Privilege against self incrimination. Right to counsel. Right to confrontation of witnesses. Right to a jury trial.
Right to a jury trial
The high water mark for mental health reform of civil commitment occurred in Addington v. Texas O'Connor v. Donaldson Rouse v. Cameron Lake v. Cameron Lessard v. Schmidt
Lessard v. Schmidt
The Lessard case represents the most stringent procedural safeguards articulated for civil commitment.
Lessard criminalized commitment procedures (at least in Wisconsin) just as ____ criminalized much of juvenile court proceedings.
Gault
In Godinez v. Moran, the U.S. Supreme Court held that competence to waive the right to counsel is not the same as competence to represent oneself.
Which of the following case holdings is most likely to be modified by Godinez v. Moran? Dusky v. U.S. Ake v. Oklahoma Jones v. U.S. Baxstrom v. Herold Frendak v. U.S.
Frendak v. U.S.
In Jackson v. Indiana, the U.S. Supreme Court held that
______ required that Jackson be held under a civil commitment standard or released.
Equal Protection
The Federal Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 did all of the following EXCEPT
Limited the definition of experts in NGRI trials.
Set limits on ultimate issue testimony.
Set the insanity standard in federal trials.
Set insanity acquittee release standards.
Specified the burden of proof in insanity trials.
Limited the definition of experts in NGRI trials.
What is the burden of proof required in the Dusky case for finding incompetence to stand trial?
More likely than not
In Specht v. Patterson, the U.S. Supreme Court held that
Specht’s detention under the Colorado Sex Offenders Act violated his right to ________ because he was not given an opportunity to challenge his sentencing under the Act at a full adversarial
hearing.
procedural due process
Kaimowitz v. Dept. of Mental Health for Michigan, involved all of the following issues EXCEPT
The constitutional right to privacy.
Detention in a state facility without sufficient
procedural due process.
The efficacy of limbic psychosurgery in the
treatment of uncontrolled aggression.
First Amendment protections of freedom to generate
and express ideas.
Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and
unusual punishment.
Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and
unusual punishment.
"Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body" was said by Justice Holmes Brandeis Cardozo Bazelon Burger
Cardozo
Landmark cases addressing procedures for competency to be executed?
Ford v. Wainwright
Landmark cases addressing the fact that the state must provide psychiatric exam for NGRI to indigent
defendant?
Ake V. Oklahoma
Landmark cases addressing forced meds to make defendant competent to be executed?
State v. Perry
What insanity standard addresses the cognitive and volitional arms (1955)?
Model Penal Code
Early case of irresistible impulse (1877)?
Parsons V. Alabama
Prohibition on ultimate issue testimony.
Washington V. U.S.
On appeal, the defendant in this landmark case contended that the trial judge should have entered a judgment of acquittal by reason of insanity as a matter of law.
Washington v. U.S.
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals holding: The conviction was affirmed. Psychiatrists were prohibited from addressing the ultimate issue in insanity cases.
Defined mental disease or defect for insanity cases.
McDonald v. U.S.
NGRI if act is the result of mental illness.
Pike v. New Hampshire (very similar to Durham test)
Competency to enter a plea same as Dusky standard.
Godinez v. Moran
Status offenses are not constitutional.
Robinson v. California
According to Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996), which of the
standards of proof listed below was precluded in a hearing on competence to stand trial?
Beyond a reasonable doubt
Clear and convincing evidence
Preponderance of the evidence
Probable cause
Reasonable belief
Clear and convincing evidence
What was the reasoning for the Court’s decision in Robinson
v. California?
It was cruel and unusual to punish a defendant for
an involuntarily acquired illness such as drug
addiction.
What was the reasoning for the Court’s decision in Powell v. Texas?
The defendant was arrested for public intoxication, not for the status of being an alcoholic.
In which case did the United States Supreme Court decline to adopt a constitutional principle of criminal responsibility, saying “Nothing could be less fruitful than for this Court to be impelled into defining some sort of insanity test on constitutional terms?”
Powell v. Texas
The importance of this decision lies in the Court’s desire to refrain from adopting a constitutional
principle of criminal responsibility. Citing the traditional common law doctrines of mens rea and actus reus, Justice Marshall said “nothing could be less fruitful than for this Court to be impelled into defining some sort of insanity test on constitutional terms.” These matters were to be left to state law.
Powell v. Texas
In Jackson v. Indiana, Theon Jackson raised an equal
argument that compared himself to which group of people?
Civilly committed patients
Insanity acquittees
Convicted prisoners
Pre-trial detainees
None of the above
Civilly committed patients
In Jackson v. Indiana, the court referred to which case in addressing Theon Jackson’s equal protection claim?
Baxstrom v. Herold
An appeal was filed claiming that Jackson’s commitment amounted to a life sentence without his
ever having been convicted of a crime. The opinion pointed out that in Baxstrom v. Herold, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state prisoner could not be deprived of equal protection at the end of his prison sentence. The Court said, “If conviction was insufficient to justify less procedural protection against indefinite commitment than is generally available, the mere filing of criminal charges surely cannot suffice.”
What was the issue in Riggins v. Nevada?
Can antipsychotic medication be involuntarily
given to a defendant at trial? (he wanted to show the insanity defense!)
The forced administration of antipsychotic medication during Riggins’ trial violated his 6th and 14th Amendment rights.
the Supreme Court suggested in dicta that involuntary medication to restore competence to stand trial could be constitutionally permissible if adjudication of the charges could not be achieved by less intrusive means.
The “offspring of a delusion” test for insanity was
articulated in which case?
James Hadfield trial
Which case had the first recorded psychiatric testimony at a trial?
Earl Ferrers trial
Which standard of proof is closest to that required by the McNaughten standard?
Clear and convincing evidence
What principle was articulated in Washington v. U.S.?
Psychiatrists may not testify on the ultimate
issue in insanity t~ials.
Once evidence of a mental illness is introduced by
the defense, the prosecution must prove sanity
beyond a reasonable doubt. Landmark case?
Durham v. United States?
In Durham v. United States, once evidence of a mental illness is introduced by the defense, the prosecution must prove sanity using what standard of proof?
Beyond a reasonable doubt
In Jones v. United States, what group of people did Mr.
Jones compare himself to in his equal protection claim?
Civilly committed patients
Insanity defense Reform Act of 1984: In a hearing regarding release of insanity acquittees, a person found not guilty only by reason of insanity of an offense
involving bodily injury to, or serious damage to the property of, another person, or involving a substantial risk of such injury or damage, has the burden of proving by ___________ that his release would not create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage of property of another due to a present mental disease or defect. With respect to any
other offense, the person has the burden of such proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
clear and convincing evidence
Insanity defense Reform Act of 1984: In a hearing regarding release of insanity acquittees, a person found not guilty only by reason of insanity of an offense
involving bodily injury to, or serious damage to the property of, another person, or involving a substantial risk of such injury or damage, has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that his release would not create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage of property of another due to a present mental disease or defect. With respect to any
other offense, the person has the burden of such proof by a _________.
preponderance of the evidence
In Foucha v. Louisiana, Mr. Foucha compared himself to which of the following groups in his equal protection argument? Civilly committed patients Insanity acquittees Convicted prisoners Pre-trial detainees None of the above
Convicted prisoners
The minimal standard of proof is clear and convincing
evidence in all of the following situations EXCEPT
Civil commitment
Termination of parental rights
Deportation and denaturalization
Right to die in Missouri
Juvenile adjudication proceedings
Juvenile adjudication proceedings
The basic elements of informed consent are?
Voluntariness, knowledge, competency
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in
its application of Daubert to exclude the tire
analyst’s expert testimony that that particular
tire failed due to manufacturing or design defect. TRUE or FALSE
TRUE
According to Jackson v. Indiana, due process requires that the nature and duration of commitment bear some reasonable relation to the:
Purpose of the commitment
The following cases involved the issue of burden of proof EXCEPT
Cooper v. Oklahoma
General Electric v. Joiner
Addington v. Texas
Durham v. U.S.
General Electric v. Joiner
Courts of appeal are to apply an “abuse of discretion” standard when reviewing a district court’s reliability
determination
General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 1997).
Judge Bazelon opined that the term “product” has no clinical significance to psychiatrists in what landmark case?
Washington v. U.S.
In Washington v. U.S., Judge Bazelon cited what two cases in an effort to clarify the Durham decision
Carter and McDonald
According to Jones v. U.S., a criminal defendant who
successfully pleads insanity may be committed to a mental hospital on the basis of
A motion by the defense attorney.
The recommendation of a psychiatric expert.
Proof of medical necessity.
The insanity judgment.
The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984.
The insanity judgment.
The Latin term “sua sponte” used in the context of a
judicial proceeding means
Of one’s own will or motion.
In Allen v. Illinois, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the
Illinois Sexually Dangerous Persons Act
Did not violate the right against self incrimination.
The United States Supreme Court stated in what two landmark cases that the purpose of confinement of sexually violent persons is tx?
Allen v. Illinois and Kansas v. Hendricks
The U.S. Supreme Court case which allows a parent to civilly commit a child upon inquiry by a neutral fact finder without a formal hearing is In re Gault Addington v. Texas Roper v. Simmons Parham V. J.R.
Parham V. J.R.
In what landmark case did the Supreme Court held that Georgia statutes for admission of children to state mental hospitals are reasonable?
Parham v. J.R
In various courts, the right to refuse treatment has been
based on all of the following constitutional rights EXCEPT:
The right to freedom of thought and generation of
ideas.
Substantive due process.
The right to assistance of counsel.
Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.
The right to privacy.
The right to assistance of counsel.
Punitive damages may be awarded in a malpractice case to
Deter the defendant’s malicious, outrageous, or
reckless conduct.
In State v. Perry, the issue of forced medication was
distinguished from Washington v. Harper for what three reasons?
1) Forcibly medicating a prisoner to facilitate
execution does not constitute medical treatment.
2) Due process requires a state’s prison regulations
to further the medical interest of the prisoner
and the state’s interest in prison safety, before
forcibly medicating.
3) Harper strongly implied that forced medications
cannot be used for the purpose of punishment.
In State v. Perry, the majority held that forcible
administration of antipsychotic medication to an incompetent death row inmate violated all of the following EXCEPT
Physicians’ Hippocratic Oath
Equal Protection
Due Process
Cruel, Excessive and Unusual Punishment
Right to privacy and personhood
Equal Protection
The U.S. Supreme Court held in Ake v. Oklahoma that a state must provide an indigent criminal defendant who pleads insanity with
A free psychiatric evaluation of insanity.
The U.S. Supreme Court held in Ford v. Wainwright that a state may not put to death a prisoner who
Lacked competence to be executed.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Ford v. Wainwright was based on what amendment?
Eighth Amendment
The Federal Rules of Evidence were adopted by Congress in what year?
1975
In Ford v. Wainwright, the U.S. Supreme Court cited three deficiencies in the Florida statutory procedures for assessing competence to be executed.
1) Failure to include the prisoner in the truth seeking
process.
2) Denial of any opportunity to challenge or impeach
the state-appointed psychiatrists’ opinions.
3) Placement of the competency decision wholly within
the executive branch.
The Florida governor’s office refused to accept the written reports of the defense counsel’s two
psychiatrists or to permit an adversarial proceeding or cross-examination of any psychiatrists. The
governor signed the death warrant without explanation.
The substantive test for competence to be executed was mentioned in a concurring opinion in which case?
Ford v. Wainwright
The concept of res ipsa loquitur is most relevant to
Tort law
Like cases should be decided in a like manner
Stare decisis
On its own motion
Sua sponte
Question potential jurors
Voir dire
Represent oneself
Pro se
He said it himself
Ipsi dixit
The thing speaks for itself
Res ipsa loquitur
Produce the body
Habeas corpus
Let the master answer
Respondeat superior
In the absence of one party
Ex Parte
Precludes need for expert testimony
Res ipsa loquitur
theory that states where treatment justifies confinement
quid pro quo theory
A theory of sexual harassment
Quid pro quo
Theory of vicarious liability
Respondeat superior
According to the Federal Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, who has the burden of proving an insanity defense and by what standard.
The defendant by clear and convincing evidence.
Expert testimony is an important part of due process. What standard did the Superior Court of New Jersey rule in 1980 was necessary to show that hypnotically induced recollections were sufficiently reliable to be admissible in court by the state?
Clear and convincing evidence
In Kaimowitz v. Michigan, the court concluded that a person voluntarily detained in a state facility can give voluntary consent to surgery if it is:
A procedure that is highly accepted in the field
Which constitutional amendment requires that a prisoner has a right to a hearing before he is transferred to a psychiatric hospital?
The 14 th Amendment Due Process Clause
In this landmark case, the USSC concluded that the 8th Amendment:
Erects no per se bar prohibiting a capital sentencing jury from considering “victim impact” evidence.
