Kevin Lam Professor Cummins PolSci 4513 Mental Competency and Criminal Liability Brief Commonwealth v.

. Elliott - Facts o Theodore Elliott indicted and tried for murder of police officer who was shot in the course of an armed robbery murderwas willful, deliberate and premeditated and constituted murder of the first degree (784) o appealed from the judgment and sentence Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed its judgment and sentence Had not abused its discretion in imposing the death sentence (783) - Opinion of the Court o counsel for defendant admitshe was so mentally deficient as to justify only a sentence of life imprisonment (785) however, no casehas ever decided that a trialmust, as a matter of law, reduce a sentence from death to life imprisonment because the defendant is an unstable, weak moron or a mental defective (785) diminished responsibility soon transfer the punishment of criminals from Courts to psychiatrists and would inevitably result in further breakdown of law enforcement (785) - Dissenting Opinion o imposed penalty was one directed to the offense and not to the offender (786) o an out-and-out insane person is never executed (786) dangerous creature and must be restrained, as the tiger is restrained. Life imprisonment would do this. (788) o the failure to find an explanation for this depraved and brutal crime is the very thing which argues for the defendants diminished responsibility (788) Commonwealth v. Weinstein - Facts o Stephen Weinstein convicted of first-degree murder of John W. Green Sprinkled sleeping pill powder onto hamburger of victim suddenly filled with a strange sexual urge strangled victim and disposed of body in the Delaware River with the assistance of other people Sentenced to life imprisonment o Filed petition for relief cited as errorthe rejection by the court of psychiatric testimony as to appellants irresistible impulse

o supreme court held that not only was the psychiatric testimony inadmissible only psychiatric testimony relevant to cognitive functions of deliberation and premeditation is competent on issue of specific intent to kill defendant was able to formulate the killing - Opinion of the Court o Counsels failure to move to suppress defendants confession at degree of guilt hearing did not induce defendants guilty plea o psychiatric testimonywas inadmissible in court properly read, the case held only that psychiatric testimony which speaks to the legislatively defined state of mind encompassing a specific intent to kill is admissible (1347) admissible if it speaks to mental disorders affecting the cognitive functions necessary to formulate a specific intent. Where, as here, it does not, it is irrelevant and hence inadmissible (1347) o only psychiatric testimony relevant to cognitive functions of deliberation and premeditation is competent on issue of specific intent to kill o defendant was able to formulate plan at time of killing (1348) carefully arranged victims presence at his place of business, victims drugged helplessness and the presence of an accomplice Ake v. Oklahoma - Facts o 1980 - Glen Burton Ake charged with murdering a couple and wounding their two children tried for two counts of murder in the first degree and two counts of shooting with intent to kill o behavior at arraignment was so bizarre he was ordered to state hospital to be examined with respect to his present sanity o Akes attorney raised an insanity defense Sole defense h/e could not afford to pay for own psychiatrist o Sentenced to death on each count of first degree murder and 500 years imprisonment for each count of intent to kill Appealed and granted certiorari Ultimately reversed - Opinion of the Court o when a defendant has made a preliminary showing that his sanity at the time of the offense is likely to be a significant factor at trial, the Constitution requires that a State provide access to a psychiatrists assistance on this issue if the defendant cannot otherwise afford one o defendants have the right to independent mental health experts as they may well be crucial to the defendants ability to marshal a defense w/o independent mental health experts, defendants could be restricted from meaningful access to justice (77)

o by organizing[data], interpreting it in light of their expertise, and then laying out their investigative and analytic process to the juryenables the jury to make its most accurate determination of the issue before them (81) o through this process of investigation, interpretation and testimony, psychiatrists ideally assist lay jurors, who generally have no training in psychiatric matters, to make a sensible and educated determination about the mental condition of the defendant at the time of the offense (80-1) o the State mus, at a minimum, assure the defendant access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate examinationof the defense (83) o the expert must be independent of the state; must be the defendants essential benefit of having an expert in the first place is denied the defendant when the services of the doctor must be shared with the prosecution - Dissenting Opinion (Rehnquist) o defendants 44 page confession, given more than a month after the crimes, does not suggest insanity (90) o before holding that the State is obligated to furnish the servies of a psychiatric witnessI would require a considerably greater showing than this (91) o since the state did not initiate this line of testimony, I see no reason why it should be required to produce still more psychiatric witnesses for the benefit of the defendant (92) all the defendant should be entitled to is one competent opinionfrom a psychiatrist who acts independently of the prosecutors office should not be entitled to an opposing view, or to a defense advocate. (92) State v. Searcy - Facts o Barry Searcy convicted of killing Teresa Rice while robbing a grocery store to get money to buy cocaine o Shot Rice during confrontation; told her hed call ambulance if she opened the safe She did but he did not call; he shot her in the head o Searcy apparently chemically dependent on alcohol and cocaine o Found guilty of murder in the first degree, robbery and using a firearm while committing a felony Appeals o Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded - Opinion of the court o Appeal: Claims he was denied due process of law b/c it prevented him from pleading insanity as a defense (916) In State v. Korell, Rehnquist stated it is highly doubtful that due process requires the state to make available an insanity defense to a criminal defendant (918)

o Appeal: Court erred by denying his motion to strike a victim impact statementsentencing court improperly considered prejudicial remarks contained in the victim impact statement when imposing on Searcy a fixed life prison term (919) The two cases were death penalty cases and do not apply to a fixed life prison term thus, sentencing court did not err by denying defendants motion to strike the victim impact statement o trial court could not correct the sentence without the defendant being present (920) remand for correction of the sentence in the defendants presence - Dissenting Opinion (McDevitt) o cannot agreethat due process guaranteedoes not require availability of the insanity defense in a criminal case o Supreme Court recognizes that the science of psychiatry is not yet so accurate that it has the capacity to formulate a standard that will accurately quantify mental responsibility in all individual cases (923) Sanders v State - Facts o Sanders killed John Butler during a robbery Voices in his head told him to end Butlers perceived suffering by killing him 1st degree robbery, first degree burglary, three counts of first degree murder history of mental instability suffered from schizophrenia o Defendant found guilty but mentally ill on charges of first=degree murder, first-degree robbery and possession of a deadly weapon during commission of a felony o Conviction affirmed, sentence vacated and case remanded - Opinion of the Court o May a defendant who is found to be guilty but mentally ill be sentenced to death? (120) ability to refrain from committing murder was seriously undermined by his illness (126) o the failure to afford a defendant the same benefits when the jury fixes te penalty as would occur when the court imposes sentence would render the guilty but mentally ill verdict as the basis for arbitrary infliction of death in violation of the Eighth Amendment (133) o must conclude that a national consensus against executing defendants such as Sanders has not emerged (141) o at least until science allows us to understand criminal pathology with much greater precision, the task of delineating the scope of the insanity defense must remain in legislative, rather than judicial, hands (149) cannot now afford Sanders an absolute defense Abbott v Cunningham

Facts o Abbott confessed to stabbing roommate David Staples Agreed to waive indictment on a charge of second degree murder and enter plea of not guilty by reason of insanity o Two independent psychiatrists confirmed his serious mental illness o Jury found defendant to be sane and guilty Appealed but unanimously affirmed in New Hampshire Supreme Court Basis of appeal: insanity rule violates his right to due process of law permitted arbitrary, nonreviewable and nonreplicable results (1221) b/c the question of a defendants sanity is solely a matter of fact for the jury, without guidance from the court or the law, it is unconstitutional (1221) o court found that Abbott was not deprived of due process of law - Opinion of the Court o to what extent is guidance from the court necessary as the jury sets out on its mission and what degree of jury discretion provides adequate due process in New Hampshires case the jury had significant but not unlimited discretion in the determination (1226) in this case jury clearly reminded of the factual and legal predicates upon which it was to base its decision (1227) Rogers v State - Facts o Thomas Lee Rogers drove to a crowded overpass and pushed victim to the interstate highway below Ran over by two cars and killed o Filed a motion to evaluate defendant as mentally retarded to determine whether he was ineligible for either sentence sought by the State (1174) trail court determined defendant was not mentally retarded o Affirmed ruling - Opinion of the Court o sentencing court did not abuse its discretion of findingdefendant was not mentally retarded o defendant sought to hold that requiring clear and convincing proof of a defendants mental retardation to determine eligibilityviolates due process (1175) finding concerning a defendants mental retardation determines only his eligibility for a particular criminal punishmentdoes not affect procedural fairnessprovided the defendant is competent to stand trial. Thus, cannot conclude that defendants due process rights were violated o defendant challengesfinding that defendant was not mentally retarded

Atkins v Virginia - Facts o Defendant convicted on charges of abduction, armed robbery, capital murder and sentenced to death o Forensic psychologist testified that defendant was mildly retarded o Overruled Penry v Lynaugh overruled constitutional okay to sentence mentally retarded people to death - Opinion of the Court o The 8th amendment should reflect the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society o relationship between mental retardation and the penological purposes served by the death penalty suggests that this punishment is cruel and unusual o we therefore conclude that such punishment is excessive and that the Constitution 'places a substantive restriction on the State's power to take the life' of a mentally retarded offender the underlying justification of the death penalty deterrence or retribution do not apply as much to the mentally ill offenders - Dissenting opinion o Rehnquist: the court pronounces the punishment cruel and unusual primarily because 18 states recently have passed laws limiting the death eligibility of certain defendants based on mental retardation alone, despite the fact that the laws of 19 other states besides Virginia continue to leave the question of proper punishment to the individuated consideration of sentencing judges or juries o Scalia that bare number of states alone 18 should be enough to convince any reasonable person that no national consensus exists. How is it possible that agreement among 47% of the death penalty jurisdictions amounts to consensus seldom has an opinion of this court rested so obviously upon nothing but the personal views of its members State v Huss - facts o after 17 yearsLoren Huss was found not guilty by reason of insanity for the murder of his girlfriend o appeal district courts order for his continued commitment o Huss argues strenuously that the district court erroneously focused on his past, ignoring his entire recent record (155) o reversed and remanded - Opinion of the Court

courtstill found defendant to be mentally retarded and cited defendants mental retardation as a significant mitigating factor when it declined to followdeath penalty and instead imposed a sentence of life imprisonment without parole

o onceindicated that committee was no longer mentally ill and dangerousprove the contrary by clear and convincing evidence to justify retaining him in custody o record [finding that Huss is still mentally ill] provides insufficient proof of present dangerousness (155) o while Huss contends that he is not presently mentally ill, all of the mental health experts who testified agreed that mental illness in remission is not the same as absence of mental illness still mentally ill (160) o however, question is will he do it again because we are judges, not oracles, we are obliged to fix our focus on the statutoryin the absence of a finding that Huss has committed a recent overt act of substantial harm to himself or another, continued commitmentcan simply not be justified (163) State v Bird - facts o Kurt Thomas Bird convicted of 1st degree premeditated murder and 1st degree domestic abuse murder for the shooting death of his wife o Bird had expert psychiatric testimony to claim that he was experiencing psychotic symptoms before and immediately after the shooting o Court allowed Birds expert to testify but only on the topic of Birds psychosis at the time he spoke to the police Appeal: Bird argues that the district court abused its decision when it excluded expert psychiatric testimony on his psychosis at the time of the shooting Affirmed - Opinion of the Court o the jury must necessarily ask whether ordinary persons of reasonable selfcontrol not psychotic persons of reasonable self-control would be provoked under similar circumstances district court did not abuse its discretion when it ruled thattestimony is inadmissible o testimony may be admitted if (1) when defendants mental illness is characterized by the formation of a particular subjective state of mind inconsistent with the pertinent mens rea (2) when the defendant has a past history of mental illness and that history helps to explain the whole man as he was before he committed the alleged offense Bird did not meet either of the exceptions and thus, his proffered expert psychiatric testimony is inadmissible Indiana v Edwards - Facts o Ahmad Edwards tried to steal a pair of shoes from a department store Caught and he fired a gun at the store security officer, wounding an innocent bystander

o Edwards suffered from schizophrenia o Charged with attempted murder, battery with a deadly weapon, criminal recklessness and theft - Opinion of the Court o US Constitution permits states to insist upon representation by counsel for those who are competent enough to stand trial but who still suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves o cases constitutional holding that a State may permit a gray-area defendant to represent himself does not tell a state where it may deny such a defendant the right to represent himself at his trial o criminal trials must not only be fair, they must also appear fair to all who observe them "No trial can be fair that leaves the defense to a man who is insane, unaided by counsel, and who by reason of his mental condition stands hopeless and alone before the court." - Dissenting Opinion (Scalia) o "While there is little doubt that preserving individual dignitythere is equally little doubt that the loss of dignity the right [of self-representation] is designed to prevent is not the defendant's making a fool of himself by presenting an amateurish or even incoherent defense. Rather, the dignity at issue is the supreme human dignity of being master of one's fate rather than a ward of the Statethe dignity of individual choice." o Must have the right to represent himself "Otherwise, the defense presented is not the defense guaranteed him by the Constitution, for in a very real sense, it is not his defense." Jefferson v Upton - facts: o Lawrence Jefferson convicted of murder and sentenced the death penalty for killing his coworker while fishing Suffered serious injury to his head o Appeal: Jeffersons counsel were constitutionally inadequate because they failed to investigate a traumatic head injury that he suffered as a child o Judgment vacated and case remanded - Opinion of the court o if any one of the eight enumerated exceptions applies, then the state courts fact finding is not presumed correct o court of appeals did not properly consider the legal status of the state courts factual findings Sears v Upton - Facts o Demarcus Ali Sears convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping with bodily injury (resulting in death) o Sears suffered frontal lobe abnormalities Substantial deficits in mental cognition and reasoning

Result of serious head injuries experiences during childhood and drug/alcohol abuse Opinion of the Court o "Although the court appears to have stated the proper prejudice standard, it did not correctly conceptualize how that standard applies to the circumstances of this case. The Trial Court asked whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the outcome of his trial would have been different if [Sears'] counsel had done more investigation. o The courts determination that counsel had conducted a constitutionally deficient mitigation investigation, should have, at the very least, called into question the reasonableness of this theory. Dissenting opinion o "But our point is that any finding with respect to the reasonableness of the mitigation theory counsel utilizedin this case, family impactis in tension with the trial courts unambiguous finding that counsels investigation was itself so unreasonable as to be facially unconstitutional. We rejected any suggestion that a decision to focus on one potentially reasonable trial strategyin that case, petitioners voluntary confessionwas justified by a tactical decision when counsel did not fulfill their obligation to conduct a thorough investigation of the defendants background. 529 U. S., at 396. A tactical decision is a precursor to concluding that counsel has developed a reasonable mitigation theory in a particular case