The Trial. Mental Health Law & Assessment

Transcription

1 The Trial Mental Health Law & Assessment

2 Assessment Pre-trial: Competence Recurring During trial Defendants: Insanity Plaintiffs: Psychological Damages Other Expert Testimony Sentencing: Mental Disability/Competence Post-sentence: Dangerousness Civil Commitment*

3 Types of Competency To stand trial To confess, to plead guilty To waive rights: To attorney Miranda rights To refuse insanity defense To be sentenced & punished Particularly to be executed

4 CST Johnson v. Zerbst, 1938 Understand charges & consequences Dusky v. U.S., 1960 Adds: Able to cooperate in own defense Jackson v. Indiana, 1972 Those found IST should not be held indefinitely Faretta v. California, 1975 Serving as one s own attorney: Voluntary & understood State v. Johnson, 1986 Defense lawyer cannot hide client incompetence Medina v. California, 1992 Burden on Defense via preponderance of evidence

5 Competency to stand trial Because of a mental defect, the person cannot: understand charges against them and penalties understand roles and procedures in court able to assist attorney with defense = Foundational Competence (vs. Decisional Competence) Competency is a current state vs. Insanity is a retrospective state

6 Assessing CST Competence Screening Test When I go to court the lawyer will. When they say a man is innocent until proven guilty, it means When I heard the charges against me, I thought 22 items, scored 0, 1, 2 High inter-rater reliability with extensive training Problems with interpretation False positives

7 Additional measures Competency Assessment Instrument Structured Interview Relatively untested (current tests est. 90% accuracy) but high face validity Interdisciplinary Fitness Abilities in Legal Arena (5-items) & Psychopathology (11 items), 76% agreement Georgia Court Competency Test 21 questions, less able to tap ability to assist in own defense MacArthur Measures of Competence Most highly regarded, 82 items though = too long Open-ended first, then, in event of wrong answer, provided with correct response and retested on T/F to assess learning

8 Results of CST evaluation Minimum 30,000 cases a year As many as 15% of clients suspected incompetent More often pursued in felony cases Judges abide by psychologist recommendation 70-90% found competent Of those found IST: 40-50% restored to competency IST: Held for 6 months, then reassessed then held for longer then reassessed etc. Civil commitment procedures ensue, since 1983 civil commitment common

9 Consequences of Restoration Trial appearance if pleading insanity State v. Hayes (1978) and Riggins v. Nevada (1992) U.S. v. Sell (2003) The psychologists ethical dilemma: Ford v. Wainright, 1986 Atkins v. Virginia, 2002 Restoring/determining competence to enable execution: Is this right? Is this wrong?

10 Juveniles & Competency Adult crime = Adult time vs. Barely legal to drive, can t see R-rated movies, vote, smoke, drink or serve their country but can be executed? Serve life in prison without parole? Moral development Inadequate pre-frontal lobe development Impaired social reasoning Inadequate cognitive capabilities to foresee long term consequences Higher susceptibility to peer pressures Roper v. Simmons, 2005

11 Assessments on Trial Criminal Responsibility Evaluation Psychological Impact Assessments Child Custody Evaluations And more

12 Crime and punishment In order to be found guilty, have to show that the defendant had actus rea (guilty act): the behaviors necessary to commit the crime mens rea (guilty mind): the intent to commit the crime

13 A question of Mens Rea The M Naghton Rule The Product Rule (Durham vs. US, 1954) & the Brawner Rule (aka ALI rule) A person is NGRI if it can be shown that: they have a mental illness because of which, they lack the capacity to appreciate the nature, quality, or wrongfulness of their actions, Either because they did not know what they were doing or did not know it was wrong or is unable to conform their conduct to the requirements of law Irresistible impulse Burden on the Defense (beyond a reasonable doubt)

14 NGRI The Controversy Legal definition vs. Psychological definition He must have been crazy Controversial cases California v. White

15 Designer Defenses Aamodt et al., Cases of Designer Defenses Examples: Urban Survival Syndrome, Homosexual Panic Disorder, Cultural Defense Crazier examples: Twinkie Defense, Unhappy Gay Sailor Syndrome, Crocodile Dundee Syndrome Largely homicide trial cases (75.9%)

16 Did they work? 49.4% No 24.4% - Reduced Sentence 11.3% - Not Guilty 8.1% - NGRI 5.6% - Guilty but no punishment 1.3% - Hung jury

17 But was it really the defense? Biggest predictors were victim vs. defendant likeability Defendant Likable Victim Likable NO YES NO 0.0% 60.0% YES 15.2% 37.5% Thus designer defense worked when the jury wanted a reason to go easy on a defendant

18 NGRI The Controversy Legal definition vs. Psychological definition He must have been crazy Controversial cases California v. White U.S. v. Hinckley Texas v. Yates California v. Bianchi NGRI vs. GBMI Should we do away with the Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity Plea?

19 Suspect malingering if Claimant has something to gain Rational, nonpsychotic motive for crime Suspicious delusions or hallucinations Current crime fits a pattern of past behavior Absence of past or present signs of psychosis Sudden irresistible impulse Presence of accomplices

20 Malingering disorders Detecting feigning Peterson & Vigilione (1992) had professionals and students fake: psychosis, depression or anxiety disorder on MMPI Validity questions only successfully distinguished psychosis fakers. Psychosis feigning often easier to detect Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms

21 SIRS subscale Rare symptoms Absurd symptoms Symptom combinations Faking Schizophrenia SIRS Faking Mood Disorder Faking PTSD Actual Inpatients Overly specific Severity Inconsistency Discrepancy b/t Reports & Observation Notice a pattern?

22 Detecting malingering Using means and standard deviations Gross over-playing or under-estimations Using informational plants real and false Develop criteria to separate feigners from the real thing Test for pathological lying Collateral reports Use multiple measures (and of different types) & multiple independent assessors Use lie detection techniques

23 NGRI The Controversy Legal definition vs. Psychological definition He must have been crazy Controversial cases California v. White U.S. v. Hinckley Texas v. Yates California v. Bianchi NGRI vs. GBMI Should we do away with the Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity Plea?

24 Case # 1 24-year old man two counts of first-degree murder five counts of armed assault resulting from attack on abortion clinics Witnesses testify he stated This is what you get! You should pray the rosary! before shooting one victim No history of psychiatric treatment Interviews with defense psychiatrist suggested he was obsessed with the idea that there was a world-wide conspiracy against Catholics Believed that Catholics needed to create their own government and money Sat on stand and refused to answer attorney s questions about alleged crime OUTCOME?

25 Case #2 30-year old man charged with second-degree murder pushed a woman under a subway train told police a spirit entered him before the attack Long history of psychiatric treatment since 1989 but living on his own since 1996

26 Psychiatric History: Reports mention: Case #2 History not compliant with prescribed medications (Haldol and Cogentin) He had told psychiatrists that he was: turning purple had shrunk six to eight inches had lost his neck had developed an oversized penis due to contaminated food a homosexual man named Larry was stealing his excrement from the toilet through interpolation and was eating it with a knife and fork requested psychiatrists provide him with eyeglasses so he could find the people who were talking to him. history of assaultiveness when psychotic had assaulted 13 people in the last two years In the six weeks before the alleged offense, he attempted to hospitalize himself several times, but was refused was on several very long waiting lists for community treatment programs

27 Types of Expert Testimony Clinical Assessments Qualitative assessments of a mental state: severity, causes, symptoms, etc, as well as of unfit status. Contract Research Quantitative surveys commissioned to examine the specific facts under dispute in the suit (e.g. negligence, liability, life worth, malpractice, presence of discrimination). Framework Analysis General conclusions drawn from a body of tested, reliable, peer-reviewed social science studies not made specific to particular plaintiff/defendant.

28 Daubert, Kumho & Clinical Assessments Four requirements for the admission of expert testimony, state that admitted expert scientific testimony should be; Testable and tested; Published and subject to peer review; Generally accepted within appropriate scientific community; Proffered with a known error rate and reported probability that the use of the scientific evidence will result in error. Kumho extended standards to expert opinion testimony.

29 Anticipated impact of Daubert Daubert will open the floodgates to any and every form of expert testimony and junk science (Plevan, in press) in the area of employment discrimination and perhaps in other areas as well. It has yet to be determined what the precise result of Daubert will be on the admission of expert testimony. It may be used more leniently or it may severely limit the testimony admitted (Krauss & Sales, in press). The effect of the Daubert decision upon the use of expert testimony in sexual harassment cases may depend on the type of testimony being offered (Fiske & Borgida, in press).

30 Opening the floodgates or closing them? Drop due to significant drop in Clinical Assessments being admitted. Framework testimony was unaffected.

31 To be admitted Generally accepted quantitative methods with known error rates employed To diagnose AND assess malingering Discussion of probabilities & typicality of set of responses/characteristics preferred to allow jury to be fact-finder Avoid ultimate issue testimony Credentials inconsistent predictor of inclusion Need to establish sufficient experience/ability to administer and interpret assessments More influential re: contracted research But remains grounds for impeachment