Psycholegal Standards & Precedent Case Law Flashcards
Exam Tips
Psycholegal
- can be reasonably creative (5-10%) when applying constructs to case vignette
- write as the psychologist and never in absolutes (ie: avoid “is or is not and instead say may or may not be)
- 50% of answer should showcase understanding
- 50% of answer should apply to case specifics
Competency Basics
- different from NGRI
- surveys defendants current/present mental state
- maintains a presumption of competence via the low threshold
- very narrowly focused question and criteria
Dusky v. US (1960)
Background
* Dusky charged with kidnapping and rape. He was schizophrenic but found CST and was convicted. On appeal, Dusky argued for a reversal of his conviction on the grounds of his incompetence to stand trial.
Standard (verbatim)
* “has a 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.”
Nutshell/General Info
* This is a conjunctive test which requires all elements of the test to be met for a finding of CST.
Drope vs Missouri (1975)
Background
* in 1975 he was charged with raping his spouse. During proceedings, the court heard evidence that he had attempted suicide. On appeal, the court accepted that his competency should have been questioned during the trial.
Standard
* The Supreme Court held that any evidence of a defendant’s possible incompetence to stand trial (lacking the capacity to understand the nature and object of proceedings, consultation, etc.) must be addressed regardless of the stage of the proceedings and a failure of the court to make further inquiry in such a situation violates due process.
Nutshell/General Info
* If competency of a defendant is in question, it must be raised at any point in a court proceeding
Jackson vs Indiana (1972)
Background
* Jackson was a deaf-mute in 1972, who could not read and was charged with 2 counts of petty theft. CST evaluations showed that his intelligence was too low for him to understand the nature of the charges against him.
Standard
* if it is determined that there is no potential for a restoration of competence, the State must either continue with civil proceedings that are applicable or release the defendant
Nutshell/General Info
* Cannot commit a person for an indefinite period of time for competency restoration if it is discovered to be improbable
Indiana vs Edwards (2008)
Background
* In 2008, was arrested for stealing shoes and shooting an FBI agent, bystander and security guard. Initially he was found incompetent but after 5 years of evaluations he was tried for attempted murder. Eventually in his 2nd trial he asked to represent himself and although he was competent to stand trial, this was denied based on his inability to conduct a coherent defense.
Standard
* the court held that, “The Constitution does not forbid States from insisting upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to stand trial but who suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves.”
Nutshell/General Info
* Standard for competency to stand trial is not related to the standard to represent oneself.
Sell vs US (2003)
Background
* In 2003, Sell was found CST for fraud and attempted murder although he had a long history of mental illness. He was later found incompetent to stand trial after his condition worsened and while hospitalized he was involuntarily medicated in effort to restore his competence.
Standard
* Court held that, “consitution allows the government to administer antipsychotic drugs, even against the defendants will, in limited circumstances.”
Nutshell/General Info
* Defendants can be involuntarily medicated to restore them to CST but there are specific circumstances they must take into account: medicially appropriate, unlikely to have side affects, no affect to fairness, and less intrusive alternatives were attempted initially.
Insanity Basics
- The defendant’s pastmental state
- Is requires more detailed consideration than competency
- Burden is on defense and rarely used
- Offense must be functionally linked to mental disorder
- A person can suffer from a major mental illness but still be considered “sane” during the commission of the offense
- Insanity is often associated with competency but not contingent
M’Naughton Test (1843)
Background:
In 1843, Daniel M’Naghten shot and killed the secretary to the Prime Minister, Edward Drummond, believing he was the Prime Minister.
Standard:
The person accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as to not know the nature and quality of the acthe was doing, OR,if the person did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong”
Nutshell:
Primarily focused on cognitive functioning (i.e., developmental disorders)
Approach: Discuss above landmark case and extract any evidence from case vignette which supports or counters the likely success of an insanity defense based on standards.
1887: Irresistable Impulse Test
Background:
Alabama court states that even though Parson’s could tell right from wrong, he was subject to mental duress to the extent that he lost his free agency to act and choose his actions.
Standard:
Defendants were judged to be insane if they were unable to control their conduct even if they knew it was wrong.
Nutshell:
a person who knew the difference between right and wrong could simply not resist the impulse or temptation due to the inability to conform behavior to the law (ex: police on shoulder test)
Approach: Discuss above landmark case and extract any evidence from case vignette which supports or counters the likely success of an insanity defense based on standards.
Insanity Defense Reform Act (1984)
Background:
After the Hinckley acquittal, which used the ALI standard, members of Congress responded to the public outrage by introducing 26 pieces of legislation designed to abolish or modify the insanity defense
Standard:
An affirmative defense [defendant’s burden to present “clear and convincing” evidence] that at the time of the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts.
Nutshell:
Essentially restates the McNaughton rule except there is a necessity of severe mental illness. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense.
Approach:
Discuss above landmark case and extract any evidence from case vignette which supports or counters the likely success of an insanity defense based on standards.
Tips for Insanity
- Remember mental illness, no matter how severe, is not “insanity”
- Insanity is a legal, not a clinical, term
- Determine whether there is a significant mental illness or defect (i.e., severe mental retardation/illness)
- Is it appropriately controlled/medicated now (for competency evaluations)?
- Was it appropriately controlled/medicated at the time of the offense (for insanity evaluations)?
- Was substances involved in the offense? Voluntarily intoxication precludes use of insanity defense
- Can you establish a functional link between mental state and legal standard? THEN apply the appropriate legal test
Insanity:
affirmative defense meaning
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE - It is an affirmative defense under any Federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense.
