Barefoot v. Estelle

Barefoot v. Estelle

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants=Barefoot v. Estelle
ArgueDate=April 26
ArgueYear=1983
DecideDate=July 26
DecideYear=1983
FullName=Thomas A. Barefoot, Petitioner v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent
USVol=463
USPage=880
Citation=
Prior=
Subsequent=
Holding=There is no merit to petitioner's argument that psychiatrists, individually and as a group, are incompetent to predict with an acceptable degree of reliability that a particular criminal will commit other crimes in the future, and so represent a danger to the community.
SCOTUS=1981-1986
Majority=White
JoinMajority=Burger, Powell, Rehnquist, O'Conner
JoinMajority2=Stevens
Concurrence/Dissent=Blackmun
Dissent=Marshall
JoinDissent=Blackmun Parts I, II, III, and IV of which Brennan and Marshall joined,
Dissent2=
LawsApplied=

Barefoot v. Estelle, ussc|463|880|1983 is a Texas death penalty case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the admissibility of clinical opinions given by two psychiatrists hired by the prosecution in answer to hypothetical questions regarding the defendant's future dangerousness and the likelihood that he would present a continuing threat to society. The American Psychiatric Association submitted an Amicus Curiae brief in support of the defendant's position that such testimony should be inadmissible and urging curtailment of psychiatric testimony regarding future dangerousness and a prohibition of such testimony based on hypothetical data.cite web
author=
year=
url=http://www.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/amicus/82-6080.pdf
title=Brief Amicus Curiae - Thomas A. Barefoot, Petitioner v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent
publisher=American Psychiatric Association
accessdate=2008-01-24
] cite web
author=Bennett & Sullwold
year=1985
month=April 1
url=http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/JOURNALS/FORENSIC/PAGES/595.htm?E+mystore
title=Qualifying the Psychiatrist as a Lay Witness: A Reaction to the American Psychiatric Association Petition in Barefoot v. Estelle
publisher=Journal of Forensic Sciences
accessdate=2008-01-25
]

In "Estelle v. Smith", 101 S. Ct. 1866 ( 1981), the Supreme Court previously ruled on a Texas death penalty case regarding the use of a psychiatric examination to determine the defendant's competency to standtrial to predict future dangerousness. In that case the Court held that the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination applied to pretrial psychiatricexaminations by a prosecution psychiatrist who later testified regarding the defendant's futuredangerousness without warning the defendant that such evidence could be used against him. The Court reasoned that although a defendant has no generalized constitutional right to remainsilent at a psychiatric examination limited to the issues of sanity or competency, full Miranda warningsmust be given with respect to testimony concerning future dangerousness.

Circumstances

Thomas Barefoot was convicted of the murder of a police officer in a Texas state court after a jury trial. The same jury determined, in the sentencing phase of the trial, whether Barefoot should receive the death penalty. Texas statute required that the jury consider whether there was a probability that Barefoot was likely to commit future violent acts and therefore would continue to be a threat to society. Along with other evidence, the prosecution called two psychiatrists who, answering hypothetical questions, testified that Barefoot was likely to remain a danger to society. Neither psychiatrist had examined Barefoot nor asked to do so, but each summarized their professional experience as equipping them to answer the questions accurately. One psychiatrist called Barefoot a "criminal sociopath" and said there was no treatment for this condition and that Barefoot was likely to commit acts of violence in the future. The other psychiatrist testified that Barefoot had "a fairly classical, typical, sociopathic personality disorder." He placed Barefoot in the "most severe category" of sociopaths, and on a scale of one to ten, Barefoot was "above ten". [cite web
author=
year=
url=http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k9840&pageid=icb.page36965&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent90797&view=view.do&viewParam_name=BarefootvEstelle.html
title=Barefoot v. Estelle
publisher=
accessdate=2008-01-25
] The jury considered this as well as other evidence and imposed the death penalty.cite web
author=
year=
url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/463/880/index.html
title=Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983)
publisher=supreme.justia.com
accessdate=2008-01-24
]

The court ignored amicus briefs arguing that psychiatric evidence cannot be offered on such issues with any reasonable degree of certainty.

Appeals

Barefoot appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals which rejected his argument that this use of psychiatric testimony during the sentencing phase of his trial was unconstitutional and upheld the conviction and sentence. After denials of a writ of certiorari and of habeas corpus, petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus in Federal District Court raising the same objections to the use of psychiatric testimony. Although the District Court rejected his claims and denied the writ, it did issue a certificate of probable cause. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied a second writ of habeas corpus and denied of execution. The Court of Appeals also denied a stay of execution.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Decision

The Supreme Court upheld the denial of a stay of execution by the Court of Appeals, saying that the Court of Appeals followed the procedural guidelines for handling such applications for stays of execution on habeas corpus appeals pursuant to a certificate of probable cause. The court also upheld the appellate court's finding on the merits of the case, reasoning that that clinical prediction testimony was not in every case wrong and could be refuted by opposing experts, trusting the adversarial system to determine the accuracy of such statements.

ignificance

The court's decision in this death penalty case was very important in influencing the legal opinion regarding psychiatric predictions of dangerousness, a position with which the American Psychiatric Association and other medical ethicists disagree, leading some experts to conclude that a psychiatrist making such statements verges on the brink of being a quack. Nevertheless, courts have been willing to accept such testimony despite the lack of empirical evidence that these predictions of future dangerousness are accurate. 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 282–283
id= ISBN 1-57230-236-4
]

However, forensic experts state that psychiatric testimony on ultimate questions at law is unreliable due to the inherent limitations of current psychiatric clinical and experimental knowledge and practice. Dr. James P. Grigson, one of the psychiatrists that testified in this case, was expelled from the American Psychiatric Association and the Texas Association of Psychiatric Physicians (TAPP) for making statements in testimony on defendants he had not examined. The TAPP said his expulsion was due not only for his replies to hypothetical questions but also for predicting dangerousness with 100% certainty. [cite web
author= Samuel J. Brakel & Alexander D. Brooks
year=
url=http://books.google.com/books?id=GdfdC2sHUm8C&pg=PA285&lpg=PA285&dq=estelle+v+smith&source=web&ots=scIoU4XGsR&sig=6kt9RhnDVAdkwJVq83XptJpZDas#PPA272,M1
title=Law and Psychiatry in the Criminal Justice System
publisher=William S. Hein Publishing
pages=p. 272
accessdate=2008-01-25
]

ee also

*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 463
*"Estelle v. Smith"

Footnotes

External links

* [http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cphl/articles/hastings/hastings-3_-2.htm Hastings - Barefoot v. Estelle]
* [http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_82_6080/ Oyez - Barefoot v. Estelle]
* [http://law.jrank.org/pages/2007/Scientific-Evidence-Relevancy-test.html Scientific Evidence - Relevancy test]


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Поможем решить контрольную работу

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Estelle v. Smith — SCOTUSCase Litigants=Estelle v. Smith ArgueDate=October 8 ArgueYear=1980 DecideDate=May 18 DecideYear=1981 FullName=Estelle, Corrections Director v. Benjamin Smith USVol=451 USPage=454 Citation= Prior=Certiorari to the Federal District Court of… …   Wikipedia

  • List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 463 — This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 463 of the United States Reports :* Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal. , ussc|463|1|1983 * Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of… …   Wikipedia

  • Tony Award for Best Performance by a Leading Actress in a Play — This is a list of the winners and nominations of Tony Award for Best Actress in a Play. The award has been presented since 1947, and is for performance in new productions or revivals. Awards and nominations1940s* 1947: Ingrid Bergman – Joan of… …   Wikipedia

  • A Man Called Adam — (sometimes abbreviated to AMCA) are British electronic music artists Sally Rodgers and Steve Jones.Recording with a ten piece latin/jazz band for DJ, Gilles Peterson’s fledgling Acid Jazz Records label, A Man Called Adam found that it was the… …   Wikipedia

  • Jane Fonda — Fonda en el Festival Internacional de Cine de Cannes. Nombre real Lady Jane Seymour Fonda Nacimiento 21 de diciembre de 1937 (73 …   Wikipedia Español

  • dress — /dres/, n., adj., v., dressed or drest, dressing. n. 1. an outer garment for women and girls, consisting of bodice and skirt in one piece. 2. clothing; apparel; garb: The dress of the 18th century was colorful. 3. formal attire. 4. a particular… …   Universalium

  • Hannah Montana (season 4) — Hannah Montana Forever Hannah Montana Season 4 DVD cover Country of origin United States …   Wikipedia

  • The Glass Slipper — Infobox Film name = The Glass Slipper caption = Original film poster director = Charles Walters producer = Edwin H. Knopf writer = Helen Deutsch starring = Leslie Caron Michael Wilding Keenan Wynn Estelle Winwood Elsa Lanchester music = Bronislau …   Wikipedia

  • Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress — Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role is one of the Academy Awards of Merit presented annually by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) to recognize an actress who has delivered an outstanding performance while working… …   Wikipedia

  • Cosmo Kramer — First appearance The Seinfeld Chronicles Last appearance The Finale, Part II Created …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”