Frendak v. United States

"Frendak v. United States" 408 A.2d 364, 379 n.27 (D.C. 1979) is a landmark case in which United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided that a judge could not impose a insanity defense over the defendant's objections. [cite web
author=
year=
month=
url=http://www.lawandpsychiatry.com/html/landmark.html
title=Landmark Cases
publisher=Forensic Psychiatry Law and Medicine, Psychiatry and Law
pages=
ISBN=
accessdate=2008-01-01]

Circumstances

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.cite book | first=David L. | last= Shapiro | year= 1991 | title= Forensic Psychological Assessment: An Integrative Approach | edition=
publisher=Simon & Schuster | location=Needham Heights, MA | pages= p. 105–107 | id= ISBN 0-205-12521-2] 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.

Decision

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. [cite book
author=Irving B. Weiner
year=2003
month=
url=http://books.google.com/books?id=jk8-b9AwmJgC&pg=PA363&lpg=PA363&dq=frendak+v+united+states&source=web&ots=CuNxX3C2Hf&sig=75LyrRl2yzzbT4d2eLb3X7ly1dU
title=Handbook of Psychology
publisher=Wiley
pages=p. 363
ISBN=978-0471176695
accessdate=2008-01-01] 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.cite web
author=
year=
month=
url=http://bama.ua.edu/~jhooper/frendak.html
title=Landmark cases - Frendak v. U.S.
publisher=Psychiatry and the Law
pages=
ISBN=
accessdate=2008-01-01]

Using the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in "North Carolina v. Alford" and "Faretta v. California" , the court concluded that quotation|...respect for a defendant's freedom as a person mandates that he or she be permitted to make fundamental decisions about the course of the proceedings.cite book
first=Gary
last=Melton
year= 1997
title= Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers
edition= 2nd
publisher=The Guilford Press
location=New York
pages=pp 166–167
id= ISBN 1-57230-236-4]

The court listed several disadvantages to choosing the insanity defense, including:
#an insanity acquittal may increase the period of confinement over a prison sentence
#better treatment may be received in a prison than a mental hospital
#the defendant may want to avoid the stigma associated with a mental disorder
#commitment may result in loss of other rights, such as a driver's license
#the defendant may regard the crime as a political or religious act

The court therefore limited any further competence inquiry to an evaluation of the defendant's specific competency to waive the insanity defense.

ignificance

This decision examines the quality of the defendant's decision. If the defendant appears to be intelligently and voluntarily waiving the insanity defense, the trial court should not deny this. However, the trial court should look into whether the defendant has been properly informed of the effects of his decision as well as the alternatives available to him. Thus the nature of such an evaluation would be similar to a compentency to stand trial evaluation. [cite web
author=Anna Saxman, Esq.
year=
month=
url=https://www.vtbar.org/Images/Journal/journalarticles/summer%202002/Saxman.pdf
title=State v. Bean - The Insanity Defense and the Right to Proceed Pro Se
publisher=
pages=
ISBN=
accessdate=2008-01-01]

The Frendak rationale, that a judge may not impose a sanity defense over the objections of the defendant, has been used mostly in federal cases. Some states have endorsed less elaborate procedures. For example, if a judge rules that the waiver of the insanity defense is not voluntary and informed, yet nonetheless the defense is imposed over the defendant's objections, then a separate counsel must be appointed to argue issues pertaining to insanity issues, while the defendant's counsel presents the arguments the defendant desires.cite book
first=David L.
last= Shapiro
year= 1991
title= Forensic Psychological Assessment: An Integrative Approach
edition=
publisher=Simon & Schuster
location=Needham Heights, MA
pages= p. 105–107
id= ISBN 0-205-12521-2]

However, as of 2002, seventeen jurisdictions permitted an insanity defense to be entered over the objections of the defendant. Thus these jurisdictions are, in effect, saying that a defendant who has been found competent to stand trial is not competent to rationally select his trial plea. Therefore a separate competency to refuse the insanity defense would have to be held that is similar to an evaluation of the defendant's mental state at the time of the offense. [cite journal
author=Miller RD |title=Hendricks v. People: forcing the insanity defense on an unwilling defendant |journal=J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=295–7 |year=2002 |pmid=12108569 |doi= |url=http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=12108569]

Realistically, because of the Supreme Court's holding in "Godinez v. Moran", it is most likely that the court would hold that if a defendant is competent to stand trial, then he is also competent to waive the insanity defense, as the two competencies are equivalent.

Godinez v. Moran was overturned by the Supreme Court decision in Indiana v. Edwards 2008.

Application

ee also

*"Whalen v. United States"
*List of criminal competencies

Footnotes

External links

* [http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:EU0wNd5RtjkJ:www.houstonlawreview.org/archive/downloads/43-5_pdf/Longtain.pdf+Frendak+v.+United+States&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=18&gl=usCompetancy Competency and Mental Illness]
* [http://echo.forensicpanel.com/2001/6/11/crazynot.html Crazy Not to Plead Insanity]