Legal Cases Related to Mental Health and Criminal Responsibility

These flashcards cover key legal cases and principles regarding the intersection of mental health and criminal law.

Ibn-Tamas trial

First trial (Ibn-Tamas v. United States, 1979) where no expert testimony was allowed; resulted in a second-degree murder conviction.

Barefoot v. Estelle

A 1983 case where expert predictions of risk were admissible in capital sentencing, despite potential inaccuracies.

Donaldson v O’Conner

Ruled that an individual cannot be involuntarily hospitalized on civil commitment grounds unless they are dangerous.

Tarasoff case

Established that psychotherapists have a duty to warn and protect identifiable potential victims.

Ewing vs. Goldstein

Expanded the duty-to-protect requirement to include information from family members.

Dixon v. Pennsylvania

The court ruled that race alone cannot be used for suspicion; additional specific evidence is required.

Baxstrom case

Concerned the release of individuals deemed too dangerous to be released, with few reoffending despite false positives.

True positive rate

For predictions, shown to be only 7.14%, while the false positive rate was 92.86% according to Steadman and Cocozza (1974).

Allen v. Illinois

Established that sexually violent predators or mentally disordered sex offenders are not afforded the right against self-incrimination.

Hendricks v. Kansas

A significant 1997 case that upheld the constitutionality of civil commitment for sexually violent predators.

Kansas v. Crane

Another critical 2002 decision affirming the constitutionality of civil commitment for sexually violent predators.

Hubbart v. Superior Court

Ruled that dangerous mentally impaired sexual predators are subject to civil confinement even without guaranteed effective treatment.

People v. Buffington

Confirmed that treatment is a requirement of the sexually violent predator act, despite low chances of success.

People vs. Ghilotti

Held that experts need only believe it is likely that an individual will commit future sexual violence for SVP commitment.

People v. Taylor

Addressed concerns over reliability of eyewitness identification and allowed expert testimony on this issue.

Foucha v. Louisiana

Stated that confinement to a hospital requires the defendant to be both mentally ill and dangerous; recovery from insanity necessitates release.

Jones v. U.S.

Established that not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) commitment is constitutionally valid, with a presumption of dangerousness.

Frendak v. U.S.

Determined that NGRI cannot be imposed on a defendant unwilling to accept it, giving them the right to forego an insanity defense.

Ake v. Oklahoma

Ensured that indigent defendants have access to expert witnesses, affirming the right to a fair trial under the 6th amendment.

People v. Drew

Modified the insanity standard for defendants who knew their behavior was wrong but could not control it.

M'Naghten rule

Changes the second prong to an 'or' in People v. Skinner, implying only one condition needs to be failed for insanity.

People v. Stress

Clarified that prong 2 of the M'Naghten test can encompass either moral or criminal wrongfulness.