Indiana v. Edwards

"Ahmad Edwards was arrested in Indiana after stealing a pair of shoes and shooting an FBI agent, a store security guard, and a bystander. Edwards was initially found mentally incompetent but, after five years of psychiatric evaluation, was put on trial for attempted murder. After his first trial resulted in a hung jury, Edwards asked to represent himself at his retrial. This request was initially granted by the trial court but was overturned when the court found that, although Edwards was competent to stand trial, he was unable to conduct a coherent defense. This ruling was supported by Edwards' filing of rambling and irrelevant documents during the proceedings."

Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ^]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_v._Indiana}

"Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that determined a U.S. state violated due process by involuntarily committing a criminal defendant for an indefinite period of time solely on the basis of his permanent incompetency to stand trial on the charges filed against him.^[1][2]"

He was a deaf mute" incompetent defendants cannot be held in a mental institution longer than a reasonable period of time ot determine if there is a substantial probabilty of restoration"

Vitek v. Jones (1980) is a landmark correctional mental health case

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/445/480/case.html

Vitek v. Jones  In this case, an inmate challenged that a Nebraska statute was unconstitutional because it stated that the Director of Correctional Services could transfer a prisoner to a mental hospital if a designated physician or psychologist found the patient to be suffering from a “mental disease or defect” that could not be properly treated in the prison.

"Title VII: Forbids practices on basis of gender (became legal basis of sexual harassment actions) "       challenge how they were being treated in prison. There have been tens of thousands of prisoner “1983 claims” (most commonly citing violations of the First, Eighth, and 14th Amendments) (Table 1).

 Turner v. Safley (1987)

the United States Supreme Court 

Harper v. Washington (1990

landmark case

Coleman v. Schwarzenegger 1994

Plata v Schwarzenegger, 2001

"prisoners continue to use Section 1983 to make constitutional claims against prisons.

The class-action suit Coleman v. Schwarzenegger resulted in a 1994 ruling that California prisons' mental healthcare was so bad that it constituted “cruel and unusual punishment,” violating the Eighth Amendment.²⁰ This was followed by the 2001 class action lawsuit Plata v. Schwarzenegger, which resulted in the same finding related to all medical care.²¹ The finding was based on an assessment of multiple deficiencies, such as inadequate screening for medical problems, inadequate access to medical care, poor organization of records, untimely responses to emergencies, and insufficient medical staffing"

"Insanity aquitees must be both mentally ill and dangerous to be held."        "

Petitioner Terry Foucha was charged with aggravated burglary and illegal discharge of a firearm. He burglarized a home after the occupants fled and discharged a firearm in the direction of a law enforcement officer. Initially he was evaluated as incompetent to proceed to trial because he was unable to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the offense. When he later was evaluated as competent, he was tried and found not guilty by reason of insanity. He was committed to East Feliciana State Hospital (La Maximum Secure) on the grounds that he had a mental illness and was dangerous.^[3]

Under Louisiana law, a criminal defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to a psychiatric hospital will remain there until the hospital review committee recommends that he be released. If the review committee recommends release, then the trial court must hold a hearing to determine whether he is dangerous to himself or others. If he is found to be dangerous, he may be returned to the hospital whether or not he is currently mentally ill. The committee met and stated that it could not guarantee that Foucha would not be a danger to himself or others.^[4]

Therefore, the state court ordered petitioner Foucha to return to the mental institution to which he had been committed, ruling that he was dangerous. The decision was based on a doctor's testimony that, although Foucha had recovered from the drug induced psychosis for which he was committed, he continued to be diagnosed as having an antisocial personality, a condition that is not a mental illness and is not considered treatable. Foucha had been involved in several fights within the facility which doctors felt might indicate he might pose a danger if released.^[1] The court stated the burden of proof rested on Foucha to prove that he was not a danger to himself or others.^[  "    

"Ok to exclude expert based only on judge finding an experts finding unsupported."   

Malpractice claims made by HMOs are not preempted by ERISA. Failure to provide adequate care is malpractice.              

guy died because of HMO denial for tests

"State was obligated to establish the need for treatment.               "Petitioner David Riggins challenges his murder and robbery convictions on the ground that the State of Nevada unconstitutionally forced an antipsychotic drug upon him during trial. Because the Nevada courts failed to make findings sufficient to support forced administration of the drug, we reverse.""

he heard voices and couldnt sleep Riggins also asserted that, because he would offer an insanity defense at trial, he had a right to show jurors his "true mental state.

would have been okay but no sufficent documentation "

"Contagious disease is a physical impairment "

" Court also noted that Congress adopted this expanded definition "to preclude discrimination against a person who has a record of, or is regarded as having, an impairment but who may at present have no actual incapacity at all."

teacher with tb

: This case was decided under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Regulations of the Americans with Disabilities Act provide that Rehabilitation Act cases may be used for guidance under the ADA."

ERISA section 514

502A

the provisions of ERISA 514 supercede state laws

employment retirement income security act

pay or play

has to do with requirements for employers to cover employees

502a "may recover monetary value of denied claim only               "

"hypnotically refreshed testimony could be admissible on a case by case basis  "     "This paper analyzes the Nebraska Supreme Court's decision in State v. Palmer (1981) which held that unless experts generally agree that hypnosis can accurately improve memory, a witness who has been questioned under hypnosis prior to trial may not testify in a subsequent criminal proceeding regarding matters covered in the hypnotic session."

        "Frye test. This rule requires that a scientific procedure or technique must have gained general acceptance in its particular field before the result of that procedure is admissible in court"

lady wih chronic dementia and wandering, family wanted to take home established least restrictive environment

"Deprivations of liberty solely because of dangers to the ill persons themselves should not go beyond what is necessary for their protection. "

"Individualized treatment plans and least restrictive environment.               "

"Same sex sexual harassment is actionable"

"

In late October 1991, Joseph Oncale was working for Sundowner Offshore Services on a Chevron USA Inc. oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico. He was employed as a roustabout on an eight-man crew. On several occasions, Oncale was forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions against him by his coworkers in the presence of the rest of the crew. Oncale was also sodomized with a bar of soap, and threatened with rape. Oncale's complaints to supervisory personnel produced no remedial action. Instead, the company's Safety Compliance Clerk called him a name suggesting homosexuality. Oncale eventually quit—asking that his pink slip reflect that he "voluntarily left due to sexual harassment and verbal abuse."

Oncale filed a complaint against Sundowner in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging that he was discriminated against in his employment because of his sex. Relying on earlier precedents, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendant, writing that "Mr. Oncale, a male, has no cause of action under Title VII for harassment by male co-workers

this was found to be wrong

""the state can't confine, without more, a non-dangerous, mentally ill person who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself or with the help of family or friends"

chronic schizophrenic committed for years "

He spent 15 years as a patient; he did not receive any treatment, actively refusing it, and attempting to secure his release. Throughout his stay he denied he was ever mentally ill, and refused to be put into a halfway house.

Donaldson later wrote a book about his experience as a mental patient titled Insanity Inside Out"

"A person is not responsible for his criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. Does NOT include psychopathy"american law Institute

1. Appreciate the criminality of his conduct; or
2. Conform his conduct to the requirements of the law

• Purposely. If the element involves the nature of the conduct or the result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in that conduct or cause the result. If the element involves attendant circumstances, he is aware of the circumstances or believes or hopes that they exist.
• Knowingly. If the element involves the nature of the conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that the circumstances exist. If the element involves a result, he is practically certain that the result will occur. Further, if the element involves knowledge of the existence of a particular fact, it is satisfied if he is aware of a high probability of the existence of that fact, unless he actually believes that it does not exist.
• Recklessly. A person consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the element exists or will result, such that its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe.
• Negligently. A person should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the element exists or will result, such that the failure to perceive it involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe."

N'Naghten rule.

The M'Naghten Rule

M'Naghten Rule for testing legal insanity, often called the "right-wrong" test and used by the majority of states.

The M'Naghten Rule (or test) focuses on whether a criminal defendant knew the nature of the crime or understood right from wrong at the time it was committed."The rule was formulated as a reaction to the acquittal in 1843 of Daniel M'Naghten on the charge of murdering Edward Drummond, whom M'Naghten had mistaken for British Prime Minister Robert Peel.

"Durham Rule, a criminal defendant cannot be convicted of a crime if the act was the result of a mental disease or defect at the time of the incident. It has often been referred to as the "product defect" rule, but does not require a medical diagnosis of mental illness or disorder

only new hamshire uses for severe illness A defendant found "not guilty by reason of insanity" (or legally insane) cannot be convicted for crimes committed as a result of certain mental conditions, since willful intent is required for most convictions. The question will be simply whether the accused acted because of a mental disorder, and not whether he displayed particular symptoms which medical science has long recognized do not necessarily, or even typically, accompany even the most serious mental disorder."

examle steal money due to gambling addiction

The Irresistible Impulse Test was first adopted by the Alabama Supreme Court in the 1887 case of Parsons v. State.

Alabama court stated that even though the defendant could tell right from wrong, he was subject to "the duress of such mental disease [that] he had ... lost the power to choose between right and wrong" and that "his free agency was at the time destroyed," and thus, "the alleged crime was so connected with such mental disease, in the relation of cause and effect, as to have been the product of it solely

consiered as a part of american law institiute model penal code Alabama court stated that even though the defendant could tell right from wrong, he was subject to "the duress of such mental disease [that] he had ... lost the power to choose between right and wrong" and that "his free agency was at the time destroyed," and thus, "the alleged crime was so connected with such mental disease, in the relation of cause and effect, as to have been the product of it solely

"failure to request records that showed danger""

Jablonski by Pahls v. United States, 712 F.2d 391 (9th Cir. 1983) is a landmark case in which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a mental health professional's duty to predict dangerousness includes consulting a patient's prior records, and that their duty to protect includes the involuntary commitment of a dangerous individual; simply warning the foreseeable victim is insufficient.

Facts[edit]

Mr. Jablonski was dating Ms. Kimball but had threatened to kill her and her mother (Ms. Pahls). After one incident that culminated in a threat towards her mother, she took him to the Loma Linda VA Hospital, where the doctor conducted a risk assessment, but did not consult his prior records; which documented a history of violent behavior. Based on this incomplete data, he determined erroneously that Jablonski was not a danger to himself or others and released him"

"A defendant may voluntarily and intelligently forego a NGRI defense. A court may impose an NGRI defense on an unwilling competent defendant who refuses it for irrational reasons"     "

Paula Frendak shot a coworker. After four competency hearings, the defendant was adjudicated competent, although in the opinion of several experts she was likely insane when she committed the crime. However, Frendak refused to use the insanity defense as she felt a hospital was worse than any prison. She attempted suicide, went on hunger strikes and refused medication to underscore her protests.^[2] However, she was forced by the court to plead insanity. Thus, in this case a competent defendant was not allowed to reject the use of the insanity defense.^[3]On appeal the decision was reversed. The judge may not impose the insanity defense upon an unwilling defendant if an intelligent defendant voluntarily wishes to forgo the defense.^[4] The court said that a defendant may feel hospital is worse than prison, that the term of incarceration may be longer, that the stigma and legal consequences of a criminal or an insanity defenses are different."

"

"

approximate  answers
2\. Clouding of conciousness
3. Somatic conversion
4. Hallucinations               ""

Olmstead v. L.C. (1999)              

"barred psychiatrists from testifying to the ultimate issue    "          

NGRI

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners violated 8th   

J. W. Gamble was a state prisoner within the Texas Department of Corrections who was given a prison labor assignment loading and unloading cotton bales from a truck. On November 9, 1973, he injured his back when a cotton bale fell on him. Over the next three months, he complained of back and chest pains, was subject to administrative segregation for refusing to work, and ultimately was treated for an irregular heartbeat.

The Court found for the defendant because it viewed his failure to receive proper medical care as "inadvertent". The case nevertheless established the principle that the deliberate and failure of prison authorities to address the medical needs of an inmate constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment".^[1] It held that "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the 'unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain'...proscribed by the Eighth Amendment           

set standard of subjective recklessness, i.e. prove that he had knowledge of the situation.              

Dee Farmer, a trans woman, was incarcerated with the general male population after being transferred to the US Penitentiary Terre Haute, Indiana. She was repeatedly raped and beaten by the other inmates and acquired HIV as a result. Farmer claimed that the prison administration should have known that she was particularly vulnerable to sexual violence.

The majority opinion of the Court agreed that it was the responsibility of prison officials to prevent prisoners from harming each other, to the point where prison officials who were "deliberately indifferent" were ruled liable under the Eighth Amendment. The court did not make prison officials liable for all violence between inmates.

Definition