LANDMARK CASES W-Z

Question 1

Washington v. Glucksberg (SCOTUS 1997) FOTC

Answer 1

• 4 WA physicians w/ terminally ill pts filed suit against WA state
• Alleged ban on assisted suicide unconstitutional under 14th A. D.P. liberty interest (personal choice by mentally competent, terminally ill adult)
• Distr Co agreed, COA affirmed
• Appeal taken to SCOTUS

Question 2

Washington v. Glucksberg (SCOTUS 1997) H & R (Substantive Due Process 2 Features, One Other Main Point)

Answer 2

H: Ban against assisted suicide doesn’t violate 14th A D.P.
R:
Substantive D.P. 2 primary features:
1) Fundamental rights/liberties objectively/deeply rooted and nation’s history & tradition - contrary, assisted suicide banned for centuries/every state
2) Requires “careful description of fundamental liberty interest,” theirs didn’t meet
- Constitutional requirement that WA’s assisted suicide ban be rationally related to legitimate gov’t interests clearly met

Question 3

5 Gov’t Interests Preserved by Ban on Assisted Suicide Washington v. Glucksberg (SCOTUS 1997)

Answer 3

• Preserving human life/preventing intentional killing
• Preventing serious PH problem of suicide, esp untx pain/depression
• Protecting medical profession integrity/healers
• Protecting vulnerable groups from pressure to endlives
• Avoiding slide towards euthanasia

Question 4

Washington v. Glucksberg (SCOTUS 1997) Decision w/r/t Legalizing PAS

Answer 4

• Didn’t prevent states from legalizing, just said bans on in weren’t unconstitutional

Question 5

Washington v. Harper (SCOTUS 1990) FOTC (4)

Answer 5

-Harper convicted inmate in WA, violent when not on meds.
-Forced meds required 3-person panel majority (incl psychiatrist).
-Harper filed Section 1983 suit of violations of procedural and substantive due process rights (14th A).
-WA COA overrode trial court decision and said antipsychotic admin required full judicial hearing with adversarial protections (Rogers model)

Question 6

Washington v. Harper (SCOTUS 1990) H & R (Test, Rogers Model, and Liberty Interest)

Answer 6

H: Reversed. Said admin review panel rather than judicial hearing appropriate, due process not violated.
R: Applied Turner test and said administration constitutional as long as it was “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests” due to combat violence risk from inmate
- Rejected req of incompetency/substituted judgment bc of gov’t interest preventing violence
- Harper’s liberty interest protected by medical profession decision-making

Question 7

Washington v. Harper (SCOTUS 1990) Dissent

Answer 7

• Said mock trial before institutional tribunal didn’t provide D.P.; pressure for cooperation, especially since 2/3 people aren’t physicians

Question 8

Washington v. Harper (SCOTUS 1990) Decision Rennie vs. Rogers

Answer 8

Suggests SCOTUS would go with Rennie model over Rogers, but only talking about prisoners here

Question 9

Washington v. U.S. (DC COA 1967) FOTC

Answer 9

• Washington convicted rape, robbery, assault d/w
• Only defense was insanity - maybe some Q that psych didnt testify to ultimate issue?
• Appealed saying trial judge should’ve acquitted by reason of insanity as matter of law

Question 10

Washington v. U.S. (DC COA 1967) H & R (Jury Considerations (2), M’Naughten for Durham)

Answer 10

H: Conviction affirmed; psychiatrists prohibited from addressing ultimate issue in insanity cases
R:
- By definition, insanity judgement’s can’t be precise, so jury needs wide latitude
- Even w/ dispensing M’Naughten for Durham, still too much emphasized being placed on labels/moral opinions of psychiatrists
- Bc difficulty of insanity decisions, jury eager to let expert decide, but our society doesn’t give decision to professional elite, but to 12 laity

Question 11

Washington v. U.S. (DC COA 1967) Instructions to Psych Experts

Answer 11

Product has no psychiatric significance, so not justification for them testifying on ultimate issue. Rather, explain how disease/defect relates to offense / how behavioral processes may have influenced his conduct, but can’t speak directly in terms of product or even result/cause

Question 12

Federal Insanity Cases Ultimate Issue

Answer 12

• Testimony on ultimate issue by psychiatrists barred in Fed cases by 1984 IDRA (most states don’t prohibit it)

Question 13

Wilson v. United States (DC COA 1968) FOTC

Answer 13

• Wilson convicted 5 counts assault w/ pistol and robbery (carjacked at gunpoint, then held up pharmacy)
• While fleeing, MVA, Wilson coma 3 weeks
• Permanent retrograde amnesia for the crimes/following weeks, which gov’t conceded was legitimate
• Judge said CST despite, Wilson then appealed conviction asserting IST 2/2 amnesia

Question 14

Wilson v. U.S. (DC COA 1968) H (Result & General Process)

Answer 14

• Remanded back to trial judge for more extensive findings on Q about amnesia depriving fair trial/effective counsel assistance violating 5th/6th A
• After judge concludes amensiac CST, after trial’s conclusion, the trial judge should determine if the defendant was actually able to perform adequate.

Question 15

Wilson v. U.S. (DC COA 1968) 6 Factors to Consider

Answer 15

1) Extent amnesia affected defendant’s ability to asst atty
2) Extent amnesia affected def’s ability to testify
3) Extent evidence could be extrinsically reconstructed
4) Extent gov’t assisted the def/counsel in reconstruction
5) Strength of prosecution’s case (negate all reasonable hypotheses of innocence?)
6) Any other facts/circumstances that would indicate fair trial or not

Question 16

Wilson v. U.S. (DC COA 1968) Dissent (Specific & General)

Answer 16

• Complete lack of factual understanding of time period meant IST/couldn’t assist atty 6th A
• Determination of G isn’t a test of validity of system, only if in accordance with BOR

Question 17

Wyatt v. Stickney (AL Trial Court 1971) Background

Answer 17

Originally brought on behalf of pts at Bryce Hospital asking for injunction to prohibit hospital layoffs. Triggered investigation into deplorable conditions at Bryce

Question 18

Wyatt v. Stickney (AL Trial Court 1971) Main Finding (2)

Answer 18

Main Finding:
1) Patients had constitutional right to receive such individual tx to give realistic opportunity to be cured/improve their condition
2) To deprive of liberty under pretext of altruism/therapeutic then not provide violates due process.

Question 19

Wyatt v. Stickney (AL Trial Court 1971) 3 Areas Deficient & Additional Point

Answer 19

1. Humane psychological/physical environment
2. Qualified staff (QMHP’s) in sufficient numbers to administer tx
3. ITPs
   Point: Agreed w/ Rouse v. Cameron, lack of staff/facilites no excuse

Question 20

Wyatt v. Stickney (AL Trial Court 1971) 8 Components of Humane Psychological and Physical Environment

Answer 20

1. Right to privacy/dignity
2. Least restrictive conditions necessary
3. Not deemed incompetent to manage affairs solely bc of admission to hospital
4. Visitation/telephone comms
5. Free from unnecessary/excessive meds
6. Free from physical restraint/isolation except emergencies directed by QMHP
7. Not subjected to research w/o informed consent
8. Suitable opportunities for interaction with members of the opposite sex

Question 21

Youngberg v. Romeo (SCOTUS 1982) FOTC

Answer 21

Romeo 33y/o severe ID at Pennhurst in PA. Mother concerned bc 63 injuries in 2yrs. Filed suit (Fed CRA 1964) said constitutional right to safe conditions of confinement, freedom from bodily restraint, and right to training/habilitation
- Also suggested 8th A and 14th A E.P. violated

Question 22

Youngberg v. Romeo (SCOTUS 1982) Court History

Answer 22

• Distr Co instructed jury 8th/14th A’s could’ve been violated if tx punishment for lawsuit or if had been “deliberately indifferent” (Estelle v. Gamble)
• Verdict for defendants
• COA reversed/remanded
• Youngberg appealed SCOTUS

Question 23

Youngberg v. Romeo (SCOTUS 1982) Holding and 3 Interests

Answer 23

SCOTUS ruled did have 14th A Due Process (liberty interest) rights to:
1. Reasonably safe conditions of confinement
2. Freedom from unreasonable bodily restraints
3. Minimally adequate training as reasonably to accomplish first 2 interests

Question 24

Youngberg v. Romeo (SCOTUS 1982) Caveat & Name

Answer 24

Said courts in general shouldn’t second-guess experts in fields better informed (decisions “presumptively valid”), but liability only imposed when “such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment…to demonstrate that the person responsible did not base decision on such judgment” PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT STANDARD

Question 25

Youngberg v. Romeo (SCOTUS 1982) Difference from Wyatt

Answer 25

No personal liability for staff if lack of tx due to lack of funds

Question 26

Youngberg v. Romeo (SCOTUS 1982) Standard Compared to Malpractice

Answer 26

Since standard was “substantial departure from accepted professional judgment,” higher than malpractice suits, so only most egregious cases likely to be filed

Question 27

Zinermon v. Burch (SCOTUS 1990) FOTC

Answer 27

• Burch picked up on side of the road psychotic
• Signed vol admission to psych hosp
• Dx schizophrenia, tx antipsychs
• Req’d long-term, xferred state hospital, signed consent form
• Hosp 5 mo
• After release, sued under $1983 saying incompetent to consent and thus deprived D.P.
• FL argued no valid claim, bc actions were individual random admissions errors
• Distr Co dismissed but COA reversed/remanded
• Appealed SCOTUS

Question 28

Zinermon v. Burch (SCOTUS 1990) Issue

Answer 28

ISSUE: Can claim incompetence to consent psych admission brought Fed Court, or is state tort enough to protect D.P.?

Question 29

Zinermon v. Burch (SCOTUS 1990) H & R (Systemic, Foreseeability, Alternatives)

Answer 29

H: Valid to bring claim in fed court
R:
- Deprivation of liberty here not unpredictable nor unauthorized, so post-deprivation tort insufficient
- Nature of MI makes it foreseeable that they’ll be unable to understand/consent
- Pre-deprivation protections easily to implement (extension of invol process)

Question 30

Zinermon v. Burch (SCOTUS 1990) Dissent

Answer 30

Previous similar cases should govern (prison guards randomly losing/destroying stuff), since the alleged abuse was random, so adequate post-deprivation procedures existed in FL law

Question 31

Wyatt v. Aderholt (5th Cir COA 1974) (What it was, main finding, and 2 underpinnings) & additional

Answer 31

Same as Wyatt v. Stickney, Aderholt just became superintended before appeal.
MF: COA affirmed and then upheld constitutional RTT as in Donaldson v. O’Connor (same reasoning stuff)
1. Confinement must bear some reasonable relationship to purpose of commitment (i.e., tx (Jackson v. Indiana))
2. QpQ theory involves treatment in exchange for loss of freedom
- Also said judiciary could decide whether propose tx would be constitutionally adequate “judicially manageable standards.”