Landmark Court Cases Exam 2

PSYC-365

• Ibn-Tamas trial (Ibn-Tamas v. United States, 1979)

  

• First trial  

  • No expert testimony allowed  

  • Second-degree murder conviction  

• Appeal  

  • Expert testimony on battered woman syndrome (BWS) to jury prohibited, but heard by judge; more lenient sentence  

  • First case in which BWS testimony offered

• Barefoot v. Estelle (1983): 

• Expert predictions of risk were admissible in capital sentencing despite their potential inaccuracy

• Donaldson v O’Conner

• Cant involuntarily hospitalized someone on a civil commitment unless they are dangerous

• Tarasoff vs. UC Regents I and II

• Psychotherapists have duty to warn and to protect their clients’ identifiable potential victims

• Critics suggest law could undermine therapy effectiveness

• Ewing vs. Goldstein (2004)

• Expanded duty-to-protect requirement to include information from family members

• Dixon v. Pennsylvania

• The court ruled that race alone cannot be used to stop or suspect someone.

• Police need additional specific evidence, not just observable traits like race.

  • Thornberry and Jacoby

    • Their research showed that people often over-rely on race when identifying suspects, even when it’s not helpful.

    • This can lead to bias and wrongful suspicion, highlighting problems with using race in investigations.

• Baxstrom case (Baxstom v. Herald) 1966:

• People hospitalized that were too dangerous to be released and the government released them anyways against psychologists’ wishes

  • Only a few reoffended (false positive)

    • Steadman and Cocozza (1974): True positive rate for prediction was only 7.14%; false positive was 92.86%

• Allen v. Illinois- (1986)

• SVP/MDSO not afforded the right against self-incrimination

  • 5th amendment

•  Kansas v Crane (2002)

Summary: This case addressed when the state can civilly commit someone as a sexually violent predator (SVP).

Holding: The Supreme Court of the United States said a person must have serious difficulty controlling their behavior, but does not need a total lack of control to be committed.

• One of the two big test decisions for SVP

  • Upheld the constitutionality of SVP

• Hubbart v. Superior Court (1999)

• Dangerous mentally impaired sexual predators are subject to civil confinement even if the statutory scheme does not guarantee effective treatment. 

• People v. Buffington (1999)

• Treatment is an integral part of the SVP Act; this obligation exists even where the chance of success is low.

• Kansas v. Hendricks (1997)

• The Constitution does not prevent a State from civilly detaining those who pose a danger to others, even when no treatment is available.

• One of the two big test decisions for SVP

  • Upheld the constitutionality of SVP

• People vs. Ghilotti

• Summary: This case dealt with whether someone could be labeled a sexually violent predator (SVP) and kept confined after finishing their prison sentence.

• Holding: The California Supreme Court said that experts do not need to be 100% certain, they only need to believe it is likely (more than a serious risk) that the person will commit future sexual violence to justify SVP commitment.

• People v. Taylor

• Summary: This case involved a defendant convicted largely based on eyewitness identification, raising concerns about how reliable that identification was.

• Holding: The court said that expert testimony about eyewitness reliability should be allowed when it could help the jury understand factors that might make an identification inaccurate.

• Foucha v. Louisiana (1992)

• To be sent to a hospital the defendant must be mentally ill as well as dangerous. 

  • The state cannot indefinitely confine someone who has recovered sanity.

• Jones v. U.S. 

• NGRI commitment is constitutionally valid and there is a presumption of dangerousness

• Frendak v. U.S. (1979)

• NGRI cannot be imposed on an unwilling defendant

• Defendants have the right to forego an insanity defense

• Ake v. Oklahoma (1985)

• The courts provide indigent defendants with access to expert witnesses

  • EX: forensic psychologists

  • 6th amendment

    • Right to a fair trial

    • Experts can be admitted confidentially as well to level the playing field

      • The prosecutor can have experts appointed as well

• People v. Drew (1978)

• Altered insanity standard to account for defendants who knew their bx was wrong, but they couldnt control their bx

• People v. Skinner

• Changes the “and” in M'Naghten to an "or" so that people know you only need to fail one prong.

• People v. Stress

• (M'Naghten) Prong 2 can be either moral or criminal wrongfulness