Estelle v. Smith In Relation to Forensic Psychology PDF

Preview

Summary

Essay 1/4 that is required. This is due week 5 of the course. Here is a full essay that earned a 100/100 on the assignment. Follow has I have and you'll earn a great score....

Description

1

Estelle v. Smith

Estelle v. Smith In Relation to Forensic Psychology

Abstract There is a very fine line between forensic psychology and its mixture of the law within

2

Estelle v. Smith

the United States. Forensic psychology plays a vital role in both the psychology realm and the law realm as it’s the application of clinical specialties to legal situations when someone comes into contact with the law. The application of skills can include various assessment, mental evaluations, treatment, and competency exams. While practicing forensic psychology, it is vital to incorporate both psychology laws and ethics set by the APA as well as being knowledgeable in various laws. In The Supreme Court case Estelle v. Smith, Smith was charged with murder in Texas and underwent a mental evaluation before trial. The Court later discovered Smith’s fifth and sixth amendments were violated and his death penalty was overturned. Everything gathered in the mental evaluation was then ruled unconstitutional because the forensic psychologist did . not adhere to APA ethics and standards nor state laws Keywords: Forensic psychology, ethic, standards

Introduction Forensic psychology plays a very important role and bridges the gap between how mental illness can play a role in a crime. The broad definition of forensic psychology emphasizes the application of research and experimentation in other areas of psychology (e.g., cognitive

3

Estelle v. Smith

psychology, social psychology) to the legal arena (Ward, 2013). In the field, it requires the psychologist not only to be aware of the APA standard and ethics laws, but also specific laws regarding the clients rights and specific state laws regarding forensic psychology. Typically when a psychologist performs a mental evaluation of a client, it has been ordered by either the trial judge, the prosecutor, or the defense team. Through this evaluation, it can show if the person is seriously mentally ill, has competency to understand what is happening, mental illnesses that . played a role, suffering from mental retardation, and so forth Forensic evaluations are often one main responsibility of the psychologist and are typically more straightforward than a clinical evaluation would be. A forensic psychologist generally only meets with the client once or twice in order to conduct an evaluation (Hugaboom, 2002). The forensic psychologist is not focused on treatment of the client or working together to build a therapeutic alliance. Due to this, the psychologist is more focused on determining objective reality rather than the patient’s subjective reality. Another important aspect is how informed consent and confidentiality is used under the forensic psychologist realm. Typically informed consent includes general goals of counseling, the responsibilities of the counselor toward the client, the responsibilities of the client toward the counselor, the limitations of and expectations to confidentiality, legal and ethical parameters that could define the relationship, the qualifications and background of the therapist, and the services the client can expect (Corey, 200I). On the forensic side, it is important for the client to understand that for the most part, what is said during the evaluation will remain confidential. But also making it known that any information he or she discloses with direct regards to the legal purpose of the evaluation will be divulged at the therapist’s discretion (Hugaboom, 2002). It is important that the client understands that information disclosed during the evaluation may become subject to public

4

Estelle v. Smith

. disclosure and that he or she agrees to information being shared Background In The Supreme Court case of Estelle v. Smith, Smith was on trial for murder, a capital offense in the Texas. Smith was a part of an armed robbery of a grocery store when his accomplice shot and killed a grocery store clerk. In Texas law, being apart of a crime in which someone is murdered, everyone apart of the crime is subjected to murder chargers even if they did not directly cause the death of a person. Before the trial began, Texas announced it would seek the death penalty for Smith. Due to this, the trial judge ordered a psychiatric examination ahead of trial. The judge failed to notify the defense team or the defendant, only the prosecution team knew of the existence of the evaluation. Dr. James P. Grigson would perform the competency exam to see if Smith was competent to stand trial and if he would be a threat to society if he would ever be released. Texas state law required Smith to be tried in a bifurcated proceeding, which would help determine his liability and guilt of the crime and then sentencing and penalty phase. Texas juries are also tasked with affirmatively answering three core questions relating to issues which the State has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. One of the three critical questions the jury must determine is whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society (Welsh, 1981). The jury did indeed find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt . with the damaging testimony of Dr. Grigson Dr. Grigson testimony was both damaging and devastating to the defense team. In the interview that lasted ninety minutes, he determined that Smith was indeed competent to stand trial and testified he was a severe sociopath. Dr. Grigson offered his expert opinion that Smith was a “very severe sociopath” and “he would go ahead and commit other similar or same

5

Estelle v. Smith

criminal acts if he was given the opportunity too” (Welsh, 1981). He also determined that there would be no available treatment, therapy, or medications that could be done to modify or change his behavior now and in the future. The last strike came from the statement by Dr. Grigson that the defendant showed no remorse or guilt for the crime he committed and thus proving to the court he showed sociopathic tendencies and that it would only get worse in the future. Dr. Grigson was able to testify to and place his own interpretation upon a particularly incriminating statement allegedly made by Smith during the course of the psychiatric interview (Welsh, 1981). With the evidence provided and the mental evaluation, the jury had no issues finding the . defendant guilty of the crime that was punishable by death and his fate was sealed Later on, Smith wrote a writ of habeas corpus that raised several different questions about his conviction in regard to Dr. Grigson testimony. Smith brought forth that his fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments. After carefully reviewing the evidence in the case and the State court record, the federal district court held that Dr. Grigson testimony did indeed violate Smith’s sixth and fourteenth amendment rights to the effective assistance of counsel as well as his eighth amendment, right to present mitigating evidence at a penalty trial (Welsh, 1981). His sixth and fourteenth amendments were violated due to his defense counsel not having the proper notice of Dr. Grigson’s testimony in court as well as not being notified about the initial evaluation. The courts also determined that Smith’s fifth amendment was also violated because informed consent was never achieved and he was not protected against self-incrimination. The Fifth Circuit Court agreed that the use and procurement of Dr. Grigson testimony was indeed unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Smith’s fifth and sixth amendment had been violated during the trial and the evaluation. The Court resolved in favor of Smith under the circumstances that he . was entitled to Miranda warnings prior to the psychiatric examination

6

Estelle v. Smith Implications

The court determined the main basic amendment rights of the fifth and sixth amendments had been violated. In the fifth amendment, the court carefully examined how Miranda waiver played a role in the violation. Smith was not aware of informed consent and the implications it could have in the trial. Smith was unaware that the evidence gathered would also be necessary to determine whether or not he should be sentenced to death if convicted. He was not aware that anything said during the interview could then be used in court as well as not having access to a lawyer during this time and experienced self-incrimination. The Court ruled that in the custodial setting, the government psychiatrist’s failure to inform the defendant as to the stakes involved in the interview was enough to trigger a violation of Miranda (Welsh, 1981). The Court then ruled that the sixth amendment’s right to an attorney was violated on a broader aspect of the Miranda rights. The testimony of the doctor was introduced in the penalty phase, thus helping to determine guilt. Smith already had access to a doctor when he was in jail awaiting trial and his team of lawyers did not order or plan on a mental evaluation exam. But, due to the trial judge ordering an exam without the presence of his lawyers there, it did indeed violate his sixth amendment on the grounds that he did not have the assistance of his counsel in making the decision to go fourth and submit to the examination and to what use the evaluation findings . could be used against him Implications with Forensic Psychology Informed consent is both a major aspect of the Ethic Code of the American Psychological Association and the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology. In both, it is important to inform the client of the implications of the evaluation. Under code 6.03 Communications with Forensic Examinees, it is important for the forensic practitioners to inform the examinees about

7

Estelle v. Smith

the nature and purpose of the exam. Such information may include the purpose, nature, and anticipated use of the examination; who will have access to the information; associated limitations on privacy, confidentiality, and privilege including who is authorized to release or access the information contained in the forensic practitioner’s records; the voluntary or involuntary nature of participation, including potential consequences of participation or nonparticipation (APA, 2011). In this court case, Smith was never notified about his informed consent, he was unaware of the implications of the evaluation and how certain statements would be used against him in court. Even if there was a court order to do a mental evaluation on a defendant, it is still important for the forensic practitioner to explain the meaning behind the evaluation and how it would be used in court. Under 6.03.02 Persons Ordered or Mandated to Undergo Examination or Treatment, a forensic practitioner can conduct the examination over the object, and without consent of the examinee (APA, 2011). Even if this was indeed set up in this case, Smith still had the right to refuse to say anything and to remain silent, as this is classified under his fifth amendment rights, but Dr. Grigson did not disclose this to Smith. The major outcome in relations to the case and the fifth amendment upholding informed consent in regard to Miranda rights and obtaining informed consent when the defendants statements made during the evaluation are used in the court to determine a guilty verdict in a death sentence. Under these circumstances, a defendant must consult first with an attorney before he or she can be evaluated. Another aspect is upholding protections against self incrimination as Smith statements in the interview were ultimately used against him by the psychiatrist to form his opinions about the defendants future dangerousness. Smith was neither informed nor consented to the forensic exam done by the doctor. In the forensic aspect, not obtaining informed consent can make the entire mental evaluation unconstitutional and subjected to being tossed out in court or even forcing a

8

Estelle v. Smith

.retrial In examining the implications of the case in regard to the sixth amendment, it upheld the basic core rights of the criminal defendant. Smith had the right to a fair and speedy trial with a jury that is impartial. The defendant also had the right to know who their accusers were, the nature of the charges, and the evidence against them. Sixth Amendment was violated because defense counsel "were not notified in advance that the psychiatric examination would encompass the issue of their client's future dangerousness, and respondent was denied the assistance of his attorneys in making the significant decision of whether to submit to the examination and to what end the psychiatrist's findings could be employed” (Welsh, 1981). His defense team was never made aware of the evaluation done on Smith. The psychiatrist's name was also left off the list of witnesses testifying. Even after the defense objected to Dr. Grigson testifying, the judge permitted the testimony as it would give an expert opinion on the issue of Smith’s future dangerousness. In regard to the forensic aspect, it would be important to have the client understand what not having an attorney there may implicate. It would be important to ask whether or not the defendant wanted a lawyer present before continuing with the evaluation. Understanding that one side may have ordered the evaluation for the defendant, it is still . important to make sure the client is aware they are allowed to have a lawyer there Conclusion Forensic psychology is a blended realm between psychology and the legal system. It is important for a forensic psychologist to not only account for forensic standards for psychology but also take into account the legal system and the laws. In the court case of Estelle v Smith, the forensic psychologist did not take into account APA standards and ethical principles as well as basic amendment rights. Gathering informed consent for anything psychological is a core step

9

Estelle v. Smith

before moving onto any evaluation, research, or testing. In this case, Dr. Grigson did not inform Smith that he had a right to deny the psychiatric evaluation. Smith was also not aware that the statements made during this could be used against him later to determine guilt. Due to this violation, the entire evaluation was determined to be unconditional and would not be used. Smith was also unaware of having access to a lawyer during the evaluation. It would have been important for Dr. Grigson to ask about the presence of Smith’s lawyers and also making sure he understood that he was allowed to have his lawyers present during the evaluation as well. Knowing both the standards and ethical principles for psychology as well as the laws surrounding certain aspects and specific state laws is a core value within the field of forensic psychology. Not having a grasp on either aspect can make the psychologist incompetent or even legal action taken against them. This was an excellent case that showed how the role of forensic . psychology and the law intermingle and what can occur when certain rights are violated References American Psychological Association. (2011, January 1). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. http://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/forensic-psychology Corey, G. (200 I). Theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy. United States of .America: Wasworth Hugaboom, D. (2002). The Different Duties and Responsibilities of Clinical and Forensic Psychologists in Legal Proceedings. The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student .(Research, 5(4 & ,.Nijhawan, L. P., Janodia, M. D., Muddukrishna, B. S., Bhat, K. M., Bairy, K. L., Udupa, N Musmade, P. B. (2013). Informed consent: Issues and challenges. Journal of advanced / pharmaceutical technology & research, 4(3), 134–140. https://doi.org

10

Estelle v. Smith

10.4103/2231-4040.116779 Ward, J. T. (2013, September). What is forensic psychology? Psychology Student Network. //:http www.apa.org/ed/precollege/psn/2013/09/forensic-psychology . Welsh S. White, Waiver and the Death Penalty: The Implications of Estelle v. Smith, 72 J. Crim ( L. & Criminology 1522 (1981...