Violence Risk Flashcards
Brady v Hopper
John Hinkley Jr Case
Seeing psychiatrist, parents concerned about suciide, mother asked to hospitalize but they said no, filed suit for failure for duty to warn
reply- no, not foreseeable, the existence of a special relationship does not necessarily mean that the duties created by that relationship are owed to the world at large.
once the patient verbalizes his intentions and directs his threats to identifiable victims, then the possibility of harm to third persons becomes foreseeable, and the therapist has a duty
Coble v Texas
Coble was on death row for 18 years and was re-sentenced to death at a new hearing in 2008 for mitigation
Texas Court of Appeals found the admission of Dr. Coons’s testimony to be in error because it was not scientifically valid (he had not met Coble in 18 years and had no validated approach to his assessment) but found no 8th amendment violation
Cunningham reviewed records and said he had no disciplinary reports in prison. He said in his opinion, Coble had a low probability of committing acts of violence in prison.
Even though Coons’s testimony was admitted in error, his testimony did not affect Coble’s substantial rights to a fair sentencing hearing because:
Other ample evidence supporting a finding that there was a probability he would commit future acts of violence
Basically, the same testimony was admitted prior without objection by a military doctor years before he committed the murders
Coons’s opinion was ‘not particularly powerful, certain, or strong.”
Coons’s testimony was rebutted by Cunningham’s, who relied upon specifically listed scientific materials and noted that Coons and his methodology had been criticized
“The state barely mentioned Dr. Coons during closing argument and did not emphasize him or his opinions.”
Texas Court of Appeals affirmed original conviction in 2011
SC denied Coble’s petition for cert.
Coble was executed in 2019
Hedlund vs. Superior Court of Orange County
couples therapy, husband threatened to harm wife but they did not tell wife, attacked her and she lost her leg
Did the mental health practitioners err in their duty to warn. Specifically, is a “foreseeable” bystander in a close relationship to the victim of an assault by a patient cause of action against the patient’s psychotherapist for emotional injury resulting from failure to warn?
therapists owed a duty not only to Ms. Wilson, but also to her son because the injury to the woman’s son was foreseeable because children are not usually far from their parents
this ruling extends the duty to warn to anyone who might be near the intended victim and who might also be in danger. APA submitted a brief urging the court to rehear the case arguing the Court’s decision since they believed it was harmful to psychologists
Jablonski by Pahls v. United States (1983)
jablonski threatened to rape his girlfriend’s mother, Ms. Pahls. Pahls informed the police and discussed psychiatric treatment for Jablonski, and he agreed to have an outpatient psychiatric evaluation done at the Loma Linda VA. The police alerted the chief of psychiatry about Jablonski’s recent threats of violence, but the chief did not relay the message to the evaluating psychiatrist.
DX- ASPD, potentially dangerous, refused voluntary hospitalization, treating psychiatrist never attempted to obtain Jablonski’s medical records, which documented that Jablonski had “homicidal ideation towards his wife” and that “future violent behavior was a distinct probability.”
Had anotehr visit, said dangerous but no criteria
scheduled third appt, then murdered girlfriend
Did the VA have a duty to warn in Jablonski’s case, or were the psychiatrists acting in a discretionary manner?
the psychiatrists negligently failed to obtain Jablonski’s prior records, failed to listen to the warnings given by the police, and failed to warn the victim. Each of these three acts were determined to be malpractice, each one a proximate cause of the girlfriend’s death.
court used Tarasoff to conclude that even though there were no specific threats directed at a specific victim, Jablonski had a markedly violent history toward his wife, which meant his girlfriend was targeted to a greater extent.
