NCJ Number
188601
Journal
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Volume: 29 Issue: 1 Dated: 2001 Pages: 58-67
Date Published
2001
Length
10 pages
Annotation
This article addresses psychiatric, educational, ethical, and legal issues associated with the role of forensic psychiatrists in capital sentencing proceedings, with a focus on recent appellate cases in Texas and Federal courts.
Abstract
Recent State (Texas) appellate court rulings and Federal district court rulings have altered the parameters of psychiatric testimony in capital cases. Psychiatric participation in capital cases over the past two decades had been shaped largely by two cases -- Barefoot v. Estelle and Ake v. Oklahoma -- and the legal and moral tension between them. These rulings gave primacy to mental health experts in capital cases, and other rulings outlined the parameters of psychiatric testimony in such cases. More recent appellate rulings in Texas, as well as the Federal courts, had redrawn some of the parameters of psychiatric testimony in capital cases. These novel parameters dealt less with the explicit content of such testimony and more with particular legal strategies, the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights, and due process issues. It remains to be seen whether a new generation of legal rulings in capital cases will strip forensic psychiatry of its passionate advocacy, the legacy from Ake v. Oklahoma, in capital cases. 90 references