Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

forensic boards > LANDMARK CASES O-P > Flashcards

LANDMARK CASES O-P Flashcards

1
Q

O’Connor v. Donaldson (SCOTUS 1975) FOTC

A
  • Donaldson committed to FL State Hospital 1957, dx paranoid schizophrenic
  • minimal tx in 15 years. Christian Scientist, refused meds/ECT.
  • OT and grounds privileges denied.
  • Friends offered to take him in, hospital ignored.
  • Donaldson brough suit of malpractice/const violation, alleged malicious/intentional confinement
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

O’Connor v. Donaldson (SCOTUS 1975) Court History

A
  • Distr Co jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages against 2 docs
  • COA affirmed; held civilly committed person has constitutional RTT “as will give him a reasonable opportunity to be cured or improve his mental condition”
  • Dr O’Connor appealed SCOTUS
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

O’Connor v. Donaldson (SCOTUS 1975) COA Constitutional Rational (Gen + 2)

A

14th A guarantees RTT
1. Parens patriae: confinement must bear relation to purpose. If for parens patriae rationale, that pt needs tx, then due process means minimally adequate tx be in fact provided.
2. QpQ

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

O’Connor v. Donaldson (SCOTUS 1975) H (Gen, Different Issues) & R (Gen, RTT/QPQ, other Const)

A

H: Reversed remanded on Q of damages, but limited discussion to confinement Q (avoided RTT issue):
- no constitutional basis for involuntarily holding if not dangerous to others and can live safely “with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends”
R: State can’t force holding of those simply who are different, just d/t public intolerance or presence of MI
- Didn’t fully address/recognize RTT: QpQ argument rejected, said couldn’t really equate constitutional RTT w/ due process
- However, noted that 8th A argument could be used, free for harm from abuse, crowding, lack of supervision, improper meds, etc.

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

Olmstead v. L.C. (SCOTUS 1999) FOTC & Issue

A
  • LC and EW ID women at GRHA. (LC also schiz, EW PD)
  • Voluntarily admitted, then judged appropriate for community-based
  • Filed suit of continued confinement, failure to place in community based once appropriate, violated Title II ADA, stating exclusion from public services (EW identical claim)
  • Requested residential -> reintegration
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Olmstead v. L.C. (SCOTUS 1999) Court History & Issue

A

Distr Co: granted partial summary judgment, ordering placement, and saying unnecessary institutional segregation = discrimination, can’t be justified by lack of funding
COA: Affirmed, but remanded for reassessment of state’s cost-based defense
- Appealed SCOTUS
ISSUE: Whether ADA T II discrimination element requires placement of ID in community settings instead of institutions.

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

Olmstead v. L.C. (SCOTUS 1999) H (Gen, 3 requirements, Ultimate Outcome)

A

Qualified yes, if:
1. Tx professions determined community placement appropriate
2. Xfer to less restrictive setting not opposed by affected individual
3. Placement can be reasonably accommodated taking into account State’s resources & needs of others w/ mental disabilities
- Remanded for further consideration of app relief given State’s facilities/obligations to others

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

Olmstead v. L.C. (SCOTUS 1999) R (2 General ADA Discr Points, Rejected Arg, Institutional Consequences, Caveat for State’s Responsibility + Ex)

A

1) Unjustified detention severely limits outside exposure, thus form of discrimination prohibited by Title II ADA
2) State can resist modifications that would “fundamentally alter” services
- Rejected arg that no comparison class given preferential tx: those w/o ID could receive medical services w/o giving up comm participation
- Institutional placement reinforces stigmas against IDs, severely diminishes life activities
- HOWEVER, State’s responsibility not boundless. Bc numerous services to many people, needs more leeway than lower courts allowed. (ex: if showed waiting list at reasonable pace, reasonable modification would be met”)

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

Olmstead v. L.C. (SCOTUS 1999) Dissent

A

SCOTUS has never endorses interpretation of discrimination that encompassed disparate tx among members of same protected class

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

Olmstead v. L.C. (SCOTUS 1999) Historical Later

A

2001 EO Bush expanded to cover all persons w/ disabilities and committed to community based alternatives to address unjustified isolation/segregation

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

Olmstead v. L.C. (SCOTUS 1999) Central Issue

A

Cost: if state can provide community based alternative at no more cost, it must do so

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

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. (SCOTUS 1998) FOTC & Issue

A
  • Oncale worked for Sundowner on oil platform in Gulf
  • Forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions by multiple crew members including supervisors; complaints w/ no action
  • Quit bc felt if didn’t, would be raped or forced to have sex
  • Sued discriminated against based on section
  • Distr Co said no cause of action under T VII CRA b/c male co-workers
  • COA affirmed summ judgment
    ISSUE: Whether workplace harassment can violate T VII prohibition against discrimination bc of sex when harasser/harassed same sex
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. (SCOTUS 1998) H & R (General Sociological Consideration, Congressional Focus, Argument Rejected, Important Caveat & Critical Issue, and Two Tests Upheld)

A

H: Reversed/remanded. Same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under T VII CRA
R:
- No reason to presume that one group of humans wouldn’t discriminate against other members of that group
- Even though same-sex harassment not principal evil Congress concerned w/ T VII, statutes can cover reasonably comparable evils
- Defs contended T VII would become “general civility code,” rej bc no reason any diff w/ opposite sex
- Imp to note: offensive sexual content isn’t automatically sexual discrimination, has to be b/c of sex of the victim
- Critical issue: whether members of one sex exposed where members of other wouldn’t be
- Upheld objective reasonable person test for sexual harassment, as well as totality of circumstances test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Painter v. Bannister (IA SC 1966) FOTC & Issue

A
  • Painter asked maternal gparents (Bannisters) to care for son after wife/younger son killed MVA
  • After 1 yr, remarried and asked for child back. Bannisters refused
  • Bannisters middle class, conventional/stable. Painter more artsy/hippie-y
  • Psych testified that he was “a romantic and something of a dreamer”
  • Painter brought habeas corpus for custody, trial court granted
  • Bannisters appealed IA SC
    ISSUE: What is the standard to determine custody of a child?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Painter v. Bannister (IA SC 1966) H & R (Fitness, Testimony, and Emphasis)

A

H: Reversed. Standard is the best interest of the child. Permanent custody awarded to grandparents due to stable, middle class, Middle West background
R:
- All parties found fit, but Court emphasized stability/improvement while in gparents’ home
- Accepted psychologist testimony, who evaluated gparents home and idenified MGF as father figure and that child likely to “go wrong” if removed from home
- Emphasis placed on child’s needs and not parental preference

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Panetti v. Quarterman (SCOTUS 2007) FOTC

A
  • Panetti shot/killed in laws in front of wife/daughter
  • Psychosis, but found CST/waive counsel
  • Convicted/sentenced to death
  • Then claimed ITBE 2/2 MI. Two experts said CTBE bc “knows executed, and will result in his death,” and also mlng
  • Court denied requests for funds of own experts, competency hearing, etc, and found CTBE
  • Panetti filed habeas corpus, saying 8th A forbids execution who lacks rational understanding of reason for execution (he said it was for preaching the Gosepel)
  • COA affirmed distr co, saying just has to be aware of connection b/w crime/punishment, rather than rational understanding of it
  • Appealed SCOTUS
17
Q

Panetti v. Quarterman (SCOTUS 2007) 2 Issues

A

1) State fail to provide required procedures under Const for CTBE hearing?
2) Does 8th A permit execution who has factual awareness of State’s stated reason for execution, but MI prevents rational understanding of reason?

18
Q

Panetti v. Quarterman (SCOTUS 2007) H (2)

A

H: Reversed/remanded.
1) State failed to provide CTBE hearing which entitled to under const.
2) COA used improperly restrictive test for ITBE

19
Q

Panetti v. Quarterman (SCOTUS 2007) R (Prev Case, Trigger, 4 Deficiencies, Rational Understanding)

A
  • Cited Ford v. Wainwright about 8th A forbidding death penalty on insane
  • Also in Ford, once prisoner made “substantial showing of insanity,” 8th and 14th As entitle to hearing to submit evidence, and these were deficient here
  • Deficiencies: Lack of opp to submit response expert evidence, a fair hearing/opp to be heard, transcript of proceedings, and adequate notice
  • Didn’t say that “rational understanding” was 100% necessary for competency, but should be considered to see if distort perception so much that he should be deemed incompetent
20
Q

Panetti v. Quarterman (SCOTUS 2007) Dissent (3 - Trigger, D.P., 8th A)

A

Thomas
- Panetti hadn’t made substantial showing of insanity to trigger procedural rights, instead only submitted “meager” evidence
- D.P. of Ford only require minimal procedural protections rather than full adversarial
- Holding about “rational understanding” is brand new, new substantive requirement for 8th A

21
Q

Parham v. JL and JR (SCOTUS 1979) FOTC & ISSUE

A
  • JR/JL children hospitalized in GA state hospital for years due to aggressive behaviors/disrupted placements
  • 42 USC 1983 suit for less confining environment and arguing D.P. rights violated
  • GA statute allowed admission for child to psych hospital w/ application from parent/guardian + hosp superintendent finding evidence of MI/suitable for tx
  • No specific protocol about < 18y/o release
  • Distr Co ruled unconstitutional
  • Appeal eventually SCOTUS
    ISSUE: What constitutional process does minor child have whose parents/guardian seek state-administered institutional care?
22
Q

Parham v. JL and JR (SCOTUS 1979) H & R (4 - Interests Weighed, Parental Role, Adversarial Process, and Judge Role)

A

H: Reversed/remanded. GA statutes were reasonable and constitutional.
R:
- Weighed liberty interest of child/possible stigma + parental right to investigate illness/seek tx
- Determined children aren’t creatures of state and parents have important rights/dominant role in the decision
- No need for full adversarial process, but instead need for “neutral fact finder” to determine if properly placed/continued need for tx
- Mode/procedure of medical procedures not role of judges

23
Q

Payne v. Tennessee (SCOTUS 1991) FOTC

A
  • Payne convc/sentenced death for murdering a mother/daughter and attempting to murder son
  • During sentencing phase, surviving son gmother gave emotional testimony about surviving son crying for his mother (& prosecution included stuff in closing)
  • TN SC affirmed, rejecting contention that gma’s testimony/pros close violated 8th A rights under Booth and Gathers (evidence/arg relating to the victim and impact of victim’s death on family are per se inadmissible at capital sentence hearing)
  • Appealed SCOTUS
24
Q

Payne v. Tennessee (SCOTUS 1991) H (3)

A

H: 8th A no bar against capital jury considering victim impact. Overruled prev decisions (booth/Gathers). Stare decisis didn’t require Court to follow precedent

25
Q

Payne v. Tennessee (SCOTUS 1991) R (5 - Capital Sentence Relevance (2), Prosecution Consideration, Victim Consideration, and Stare Decisis)

A
  • Booth/Gathers decided that harm to family =/= blameworthiness, and only that was relevant in capital sentencing
  • However, assessment of harm caused is imp factor in app punishment, and victim impact one method of this
  • No limits on what def may introduce, so prosecution should be able to introduce rebutting
  • Booth/Gathers also rejected so that victims viewed as more “upstanding” wouldn’t invoke harsher punishment than those less so. Rejected, saying that victim impact designed to show each victim’s uniqueness as a human being
  • Stare decisis is good but not inexorable, and previous decisions decided on narrow margins
26
Q

Payne v. Tennessee (SCOTUS 1991) Dissent (3 - Relation to Previous Cases, Victim Impact Reasoning, Stare Decisis)

A
  • Facts haven’t changed since Booth/Gathers, just court personnel
  • Probative value of victim impact always outweighed by prejudicial effect, and makes sentencing based on eloquence of family members instead of def character/crime circumstances
  • Violating stare decisis like this basically makes every case arbitrary judicial will
27
Q

People v. Stritzinger (CA SC 1983) FOTC

A
  • Strinzinger molested/other stuff w/ 13F stepdaughter
  • When mother learned, she had both see psychologist
  • Daughter revealed during sessions, which psychologist reported to DSS, relayed to sheriff
  • Sheriff called psychologist for additional info. Psychologist hesitated about info learned from Strinzinger himself, sheriff reassured not protected by privilege. Psychologist revealed
  • At trial, daughter didn’t testify bc mother said would jeopardize MH
  • Instead, daughter’s testimony from preliminary hearings admitted into evidence
28
Q

People v. Stritzinger (CA SC 1983) Issues

A

1) Did evidentiary rulings at trial violate psychotherapist-patient privilege?
2) And did violate 6th A right to confront witnesses?

29
Q

People v. Stritzinger (CA SC 1983) H (Gen and 2)

A

Reversed
- Psychologist testimony regarding consultation w/ defendant erroneously admitted at trial
- Child’s preliminary hearing testimony erroneously admitted as mother’s testimony regarding daughter’s mental state insufficient to support finding of unavailability

30
Q

People v. Stritzinger (CA SC 1983) R (2 Privilege, 1 Confront Witnesses)

A
  • Psychotherapist-patient privilege recognized aspect of pt’s constitutional right to privacy (In re Lifschutz), but not absolute, superseded by obligation to report child abuse
  • However, just required to make initial report, no obligation to go beyond initial report to authorities. Reporting other details from tx would preclude meaningful therapy
  • Right to confront witnesses fundamental 6th A right, and Course require expert testimony/witness’s own refusal to testify to admit preliminary hearing, not just mother’s statement
31
Q

Powell v. Texas (SCOTUS 1968) FOTC & Issue

A
  • Powell arrested/charged criminal statute being intoxicated in public place
  • Defense was chronic alcoholism = illness, so under Robinson v. California, should be dismissed
  • Psychiatrists testified on defense that he was chronic alcoholic subject to compulsion, but compulsion not “overpowering.”
  • Powell convicted by lower court & fined $50
  • Appealed on basis of Robinson
    ISSUE: Does 14th A prohibit criminalizing public intoxication as either a “status” or non-volitional behavior 2/2 disease?
32
Q

Powell v. Texas (SCOTUS 1968) H & R (4 - Prohibition, Constitutional Effect, Downstream Effect, and Present Medical Knowledge)

A

H: Conviction upheld, Robinson only made “status” crimes unconstitutional, didn’t adopt a constitutional doctrine of CR
R: Robinson only prohibited status. TX was imposing sanction for the act of a public behavior that might create health/safety hazards
- Said that going further would essentially be making a insanity test on constitutional terms, which is way too far
- Also basically said that alcoholics could no longer be held responsible for actions while drunk
- Present state of medical knowledge, alcoholic couldn’t be construed to suffer from an “irresistible compulsion” to drink

33
Q

Powell v. Texas (SCOTUS 1968) Dissent (3)

A

Alcoholism disease, this basically uses penal system to try to solve psychiatric problem, and criminal penalties shouldn’t be applied to persons being in condition powerless to change

forensic boards (34 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions