LANDMARK CASES IN FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY:
Death Penalty
Estelle v. Smith, 1981
Case Summary:
While facing capital murder charges, Smith underwent a competency to stand trial evaluation by Dr. Grigson, a psychiatrist.
Dr. Grigson subsequently testified for the prosecution during sentencing, going beyond the scope of the competency evaluation to opine on future dangerousness, describing Smith as a “very severe sociopath.” Smith was sentenced to death.
Dr. Grigson’s testimony was found inadmissible and in violation of:
5th Amendment Right to Protection from Self-Incrimination: Smith was not warned of the right to remain silent, nor that the information obtained during the competency evaluation could be used against him.
6th Amendment Right to Counsel: Smith’s counsel was not notified that the evaluation would involve future dangerousness.
Key Concepts:
Admission of psychiatric testimony related to future dangerousness requires constitutional safeguards to ensure adequate 5th and 6th Amendment protections
Prior to the examination, defendant must be warned of the rights to:
Remain silent
Terminate the examination at will
Assistance of counsel in determining whether to submit to the examination
Barefoot v. Estelle, 1983
Case Summary:
Barefoot was convicted of capital murder. During sentencing, two psychiatrists, who had never examined Barefoot, opined in response to hypothetical questions that Barefoot would “probably commit future acts of violence and represent a continuing threat to society.” Barefoot was sentenced to death.
APA filed an amicus brief stating that predictions of future dangerousness are unreliable and should not be admissible during capital sentencing.
Supreme Court ruled that the expert testimony regarding future dangerousness was admissible during capital sentencing.
Rejected that psychiatrists cannot reliably predict future dangerousness.
Rejected that psychiatrists shouldn’t testify in response to hypotheticals without personally examining the defendant.
Key Concepts:
Psychiatric testimony about future dangerousness is admissible during capital sentencing.
Ake v. Oklahoma, 1985
Case Summary:
Ake exhibited bizarre behavior while awaiting trial for murder, leading the judge to order a competency to stand trial evaluation. He was found incompetent to proceed and admitted for competency restoration.
Ake subsequently requested a state-appointed psychiatrist to assist with an insanity defense, which was denied. None of his treating psychiatrists were able to testify regarding his mental state at the time of the offense. Ake was convicted and sentenced to death.
US Supreme Court ruled that denial of a state-appointed psychiatrist violated the 14th Amendment right to Due Process.
Key Concepts:
Indigent defendants have the right to an independent state-appointed psychiatric evaluation when the issue of insanity is raised.
They do not necessarily have the right to choose the state-appointed psychiatrist.
Ford v. Wainwright, 1986
Case Summary:
Ford was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. His mental health subsequently deteriorated, and despite no evidence of mental health issues during trial or sentencing, he began to exhibit paranoid delusional ideas prior to execution..
Defense experts found him incompetent to be executed, while state experts found him competent. There was no adversarial hearing or cross-exam of witnesses. The judge ordered execution.
US Supreme Court found the FL procedures for determining competency to be executed were inadequate, and that a full hearing is required.
Executing an insane prisoner violates the 8th Amendment, offends human dignity and doesn’t further the goals of retribution or deterrence.
Key Concepts:
8th Amendment Right to Protection from Cruel & Unusual Punishment prohibits execution of an insane prisoner..
“8th Amendment forbids the execution only of those who are unaware of the punishment they are about to suffer and why they are to suffer it” (concurring opinion, generally accepted standard)
State v. Perry, 1992
Facts of Case:
Perry was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Prior to execution, his competency to be executed was evaluated. He was found competent, and continued involuntary treatment with antipsychotics was ordered to maintain competency.
Louisiana Supreme Court held that forcing antipsychotics over objection to restore/maintain competency to be executed is antithetical to medical principles and in violation of the Right to Privacy and protection from Cruel & Unusual Punishment.
Key Concepts:
Forcing antipsychotic medications over objection to render a defendant competent to be executed is unconstitutional.
Atkins v. Virginia, 2002
Case Summary:
Atkins was sentenced to death despite severe intellectual disability.
US Supreme Court ruled that execution of individuals with intellectual disabilities violates the 8th Amendment.
Execution of individuals with intellectual disabilities
Violates evolving standards of decency.
Doesn’t serve as a deterrent.
Doesn’t provide retribution appropriate to the lower degree of culpability.
Key Concepts:
Execution of individuals with intellectual disabilities violates the 8th Amendment right to protection from Cruel & Unusual Punishment.
Roper v. Simmons, 2005
Facts of Case:
At age 17, Simmons planned and carried out a murder together with an accomplice. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
Simmons appealed using the Atkins v. VA reasoning of evolving standards of decency, applying it to those who committed a crime as a minor.
US Supreme Court ruled that execution for a crime committed under the age of 18 violates 8th Amendment protection from Cruel & Unusual Punishment.
Key Concepts:
Execution for crimes committed under the age of 18 is unconstitutional, in violation of the 8th Amendment protection from Cruel & Unusual Punishment.
Scientific evidence about brain development demonstrates that adolescents are developmentally immature, limited in their ability to appreciate the consequences of actions, susceptible to peer pressure, and prone to poor decision-making, all of which reduces culpability.
Panetti v. Quarterman, 2007
Case Summary:
Panetti was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. He requested an evaluation of his competency to be executed. He was found to be competent without a hearing as he knew he was being executed for murder, albeit providing a delusional explanation for reasons for execution.
US Supreme Court ruled that competency to be executed requires both factual awareness and rational understanding of reasons for execution. While Panetti knew he was being executed, his understanding was not rational, but rather driven by delusional beliefs.
Key Concepts:
Competency to be executed requires both factual awareness and a rational understanding of the reasons for execution.
Hall v. Florida, 2014
Facts of Case:
Hall was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
FL had a statutory “bright-line cutoff” requirement of an IQ below 70 to qualify for exemption from execution on the grounds of intellectual disability.
Hall did not meet this cutoff, and appealed arguing 8th & 14th Amendment violations.
US Supreme Court found strict IQ cutoffs unconstitutional, as IQ scores should be read as a range. A hard cutoff doesn’t account for the standard error, and provided no flexibility to consider additional evidence.
If a score is within the margin of error, the defendant must be permitted to present additional evidence of intellectual disability.
Key Concepts:
For the purposes of determining exemption from execution on the grounds of intellectual disability, rigid IQ score “bright-line” cutoffs, which provide no flexibility to consider additional evidence, are unconstitutional.
Buck v. Davis, 2017
Case Summary:
Buck was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. A defense expert testified on cross-exam during trial that he was more likely to commit further acts of violence because he was Black.
Defense argued that the expert testimony introduced racial bias during sentencing, violating his right to a fair trial and equal protection.
US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Buck, finding that the introduction of race to predict future dangerousness is “highly prejudicial” and unconstitutional
Buck demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel, as defense counsel introduced racially biased testimony.
Key Concepts:
The introduction of race as a predictor of future violence during sentencing is unconstitutional.
McWilliams v. Dunn, 2017
Facts of Case:
McWilliams was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Defense had requested funding for a psychiatric expert due to a history of mental health issues and a need for assistance in reviewing the state’s complex neuropsychological report and extensive treatment records; this request was denied.
US Supreme Court ruled indigent defendants for whom mental health is relevant and in question have the right to a state-appointed independent psychiatric expert to assist in evaluation, preparation, & presentation of a defense, including mitigation during sentencing.
Key Concepts:
Indigent defendants whose mental health is relevant and in question have a right to a state-appointed independent psychiatric expert at sentencing.
Extended Ake v. Oklahoma to sentencing.
Madison v. Alabama, 2019
Case Summary:
Madison was convicted of a 1985 murder and sentenced to death. He subsequently suffered multiple strokes, leaving him severely cognitively impaired and unable to recall the crime.
Defense argued Madison was incompetent to be executed as he didn’t rationally understand the connection between his crime and execution.
US Supreme Court ruled that execution of an individual who does not understand the reasons for execution due to mental illness or cognitive impairment violates the 8th Amendment protections from Cruel & Unusual Punishment.
Key Concepts:
Clarified that the Panetti standard for competency to be executed focuses on effect, not cause.
Judges must look “beyond any given diagnosis to a downstream consequence.”
While Panetti was unable to understand the reasons for his execution due to psychotic delusions, Madison explains that other conditions, such as dementia, may also lead to an inability to understand the reasons for execution.
The 8th Amendment may permit execution of an individual who cannot recall their crime
The 8th Amendment may prohibit execution of an individual with dementia.