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Which landmark case superseded Frye?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.
