LANDMARK CASES S Flashcards
Santosky v. Kramer (SCOTUS 1982) FOTC & Issue
- Santosky children removed from home 2/2 neglect/danger
- Later, county petitioned permanent termination of parental rights
- Lower court used POTE, ruled for termination
- Appealed to intermediates/state SC, challenging SOP, unsuccessful
- Appealed SCOTUS
ISSUE: What is constitutionally required BOP for termination of parental rights?
Santosky v. Kramer (SCOTUS 1982) H & R (4 - Const Interest, Test, BOP Consideration, Gov’t Interest)
H: BOP is CACE
R:
- Fundamental liberty interest of natural parents for custody protected by 14th A, doesn’t simply evaporate due to mistakes. Parental rights interferes w/ fundamental liberty interest
- Used balancing test for procedural due process from Matthews v. Eldridge
- POTE means could be nearly equal wrong chances of failure to terminate vs erroneous termination, but balance doesn’t represent severity of these outcomes given destruction of family
- Not necessary to preserve to preserve gov’t interest involved
Santosky v. Kramer (SCOTUS 1982) Individual States
Free to set higher standard than CACE, that’s just constitutional minimum req’d by 14th A D.P.
3 Factors from Matthews v. Elridge Cited by Santosky v. Kramer (SCOTUS 1982) (& what it’s for)
For Procedural D.P.
1. Private interest affected by proceeding
2. Risk of error created by state’s chosen procedure
3. Countervailing gov’t interest supporting use of challenged procedure
Sell v. United States (SCOTUS 1993) FOTC & Issue
- Sell charged with Medicaid fraud & l8r attempted murder.
- Found IST delusional d/o. Ref meds.
- COA ruled gov’t interest in restoring competency was serious enough to override liberty interest (only regarded fraud charges, not murder).
Sell appealed.
ISSUE: Does Constitution permit invol antipsychs in order to restore competency for nonviolent offenses?
Sell v. United States (SCOTUS 1993) (Holding, Gen Thing, 4 criteria, and additional point)
Ultimate Hold: Remanded to consider factors like sfx/gov’t interest due to prolonged incarceration.
Invol meds to restore competency allowable in following circumstance:
1. Important gov’t interest at state
2. Medication substantially likely to restore competency and unlikely to have side effects that would interfere
3. Most appropriate method of competency restoration without less intrusive means
4. Medically appropriate “in patient’s best medical interest”
- Should rarely be necessary bc gov’t should first utilize other grounds of invol meds, such as emergency for dangerousness or incompetence and guardian consent
Sell v. United States (SCOTUS 1993) 2 Previous Cases Cited
Washington v. Harper: Inmates have const liberty interest to avoid unwanted administration, D.P. permits invol admin if dangerous/tx in medical interest
Riggins v. Nevada: Suggested in dicta that invol to restore CST might be allowable if no less intrusive means
Sell v. United States (SCOTUS 1993) Dissent
Relying on post deprivation relief here, meant harm had already been done, but criminal defendants could use to their advantage in future to hold up trial
Specht v. Patterson (SCOTUS 1967) FOTC
- Specht convicted of indecent liberties, carries max sentence 10yr, but instead sentenced under Sex Offenders Act to indefinite term
- Act required undergoing psych eval to say if treatable and should be committed to state facility, and sentence under act of concludes risk of harm to others, or habitaul offender and MI
- Filed habeas corpus, complained no notice/hearing in order to challenge evidence conisdered by court
- Affirmed by Distr Co and COA, appealed SCOTUS
Specht v. Patterson (SCOTUS 1967) H & R
H: Violated 14th A D.P. by not giving Specht right to be present w/ counsel, confront evidence, cross witnesses, and offer own evidence
R:
- COA based their opinion on previous SCOTUS decision that limited D.P. and allowed hearsay at sentencing hearings, but in this case, SCOTUS noted taht this was essentially new criminal charges/facts with a new criminal punishment, so req’d D.P. again
Specht v. Patterson (SCOTUS 1967) Notability
- Accorded D.P. rights when psych eval was to be used in sentencing and involuntary tx at issue
State of Minnesota v. Andring (MN SC 1984) FOTC
- Andring charged w/ crim sex conduct w/ stepdaughter/niece
- Voluntarily entered psyc hospital before trial
- Related experience of sexual conduct during individual counseling sessions, social history intake, and during group therapy sessions
- State requested medical records, trial court denied for social hx intake/individual tx, but allowed for group therapy
- Trial court escalated Q to MN SC
State of Minnesota v. Andring (MN SC 1984) Question Issue:
If physician/nurse-pt privilege extended to disclosures during necessary group therapy sessions, and are other pts so reasonably necessary for the tx for their relationship to be confidential as well? (when crimes have already been charged)
State of Minnesota v. Andring (MN SC 1984) H & R (4 - Other Act, Reporting Laws, Purpose of Reporting Laws, Group Tx Confidentality)
H: Physician-pt privilege extends to necessary group therapy sessions, Child Reporting Act only evidentiary use for the maltreatment report
R:
- Comprehensive Alcohol Rehabilitation Act (1974) provides for confidentiality, but doesn’t override child reporting laws
- Reporting laws don’t completely abrogate medical privilege, but only disclosure of info that Act requires to be reported
- Purpose of child abuse reporting statutes is to protect the children, not punish/prosecute the mistreating
- Confidentiality in group therapy bc third persons were necessary/customary participants in this tx
State v. Hurd (NJ SC 1980) FOTC
- Jane Sell attacked in home
- Unwilling or unable to ID assailant until hypnosis 3 weeks later, then ID’s ex-husband
- After husband, uncertain of ID, but urged to “accept” it by hypnotist and detective
