Civil Commitment
Parham versus J.R.
Adversarial hearings are NOT required for the commitment of a juvenile whose parents or guardian requested the commitment
Kansas versus Hendricks
The procedure for civil commitment established by the Kansas SVP Act DOES NOT violate principles of due process, double jeopardy, or ex post facto.
Lassiter v. Department of Social Services
States are NOT required to appoint counsel for parents in termination of parental rights hearings
Fare v. Michael
(1) Juvenile requests for probation officer presence during an interrogation does NOT trigger Miranda, (2) “Totality of the circumstances” standard in considering waiver of Miranda knowingly and voluntarily applies to juveniles
Atkins v. Virginia
The execution of ID persons is considered cruel and unusual punishment
Addington versus Texas
Clear and convincing is the burden of proof for civil commitment
Tarasoff v. Board of Regents U. Calif 1976
Mental health professionals have a duty to protect intended victims from foreseeable
Santosky v. Kramer
For legal termination of parental rights, courts MUST use the “clear and convincing” standard
J.D.B. v. North Carolina
Courts SHOULD consider the age of a juvenile suspect in deciding whether he or she is in custody for Miranda purposes
Gregg v. Georgia
Imposition of the death penalty does NOT violate the 8th and 14th Amendments
O'Connor Versus Donaldson
Mentally ill persons CANNOT be involuntarily hospitalized if they are not dangerous
Tarasoff v. Board of Regents U. California 1974
This rule requires therapists to warn the intended victim, notify law enforcement, or take other reasonable steps when a patient makes a specific, credible threat against an identifiable person
Tutor versus Tutor
In custody disputes, the siblings should be kept together if possible
In re Winship
Provided the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof to juvenile cases to ensure compliance with Fourteenth Amendment Due Process
Panetti v. Quarterman
Competency for execution must include a rational understanding of the State’s justification for executing the defendant/inmate
Rouse versus Cameron
Patients involuntarily committed to a public mental hospital after being acquitted by reason of insanity have a legal right to receive adequate treatment.
The court ruled that if treatment is not provided, the confinement may be unconstitutional, and the right to treatment is enforceable through a writ of habeas corpus
Zinermon versus Burch
It is conceivable that one seeking voluntary admission would not be in his/her right mind, and the burden is on the provider to assess for competency to make this decision
So, procedural safeguards for admission must include
Valid consent (if competent)
Hearing for involuntary admission (if incompetent)
Troxel v. Granville
The found the liberty issue of parents determining proper care, control, and custody of their children to be “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court
Breed v. Jones
Double jeopardy applies to juveniles – they CANNOT be adjudicated in juvenile court and then tried as an adult in adult court for the same crimes
Roper v. Simmons
The execution of minors VIOLATES the “cruel and unusual punishment” protection in the 8th amendment
Estelle versus Gamble
Prisoners DO have a constitutional right to adequate medical care
Kansas versus Crane
The ruling in Kansas v. Hendricks DOES NOT require the state to prove that a dangerous individual is completely unable to control their behavior
Determining a complete lack of control was not necessary to be committed under the Act; however, because a lack of control cannot be quantifiable, they instead suggested a “serious difficulty” with controlling behavior was adequate for SVP determinations.
White v. Illinois
The Confrontation Clause does NOT require a declarant be produced at trial or found unavailable before out-of-court statements can be made admissible into evidence.
Montgomery v. Louisiana
significantly limited the use of life-without-parole sentences for juvenile offenders by making a previous ruling retroactive nationwide
Barefoot v. Estelle
Psychiatric experts CAN testify to predictions of future dangerousness, which is considered relevant evidence for sentencing hearings. The expert need not rely on personal examination; responses to hypothetical questions may suffice.