Civil Commitment
Addington v. Texas
“Clear and convincing” IS the burden of proof for civil commitment
Tarasoff v. Board of Regents, U. California (1974)
Tarasoff v. Board of Regents, U. California (1976)
The court originally held that therapists have a duty to warn third parties when their patient presents a serious danger of violence.
There IS a therapist's duty to protect third parties from dangerous patients.
Painter v Bannister
The standard for determining child custody IS based on the best interests of the child
Neil v Biggers
Upheld the constitutionality of “show up” procedures – while suggestive, the totality of the circumstances prevented this evidence from being thrown out
1. The opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime
2. witness's degree of attention
3. accuracy of the witness's prior description of the criminal
4. level of certainty in the witness at confrontation
5. length of time between crime and confrontation
Cooper v. Oklahoma
Preponderance of the evidence IS the appropriate standard for determining a defendant’s competence to stand trial
Kansas v Hendrick
The procedure for civil commitment established by the Kansas SVP Act DOES NOT violate principles of due process, double jeopardy, or ex post facto.
Harris v Forklift System
Sexual harassment DOES NOT have to “seriously affect [an employee’s] psychological well-being” in order to create an abusive work environment in violation of Title VII
Santosky v Kramer
For legal termination of parental rights, courts MUST use the “clear and convincing” standard
Rock v Arkansas
Blanket bans on testimony derived from hypnosis are unconstitutional.
Colorado v. Connelly
To find a confession involuntary, there needs to be coercive police activity (it is required)
O’Conner v Donaldson
Mentally ill persons CANNOT be involuntarily hospitalized if they are not dangerous
Zinermon v Burch
Incompetent individuals CANNOT consent to voluntary hospitalization
Troxal v Gainsville
Parents have a protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to direct the upbringing of their children.
SCOTUS (6-3) found the Washington statute to be in violation of parents’ Due Process rights under the 14th Amendment to make decisions regarding the care of their children. They 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.”
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.
Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984
The law made it more difficult to successfully obtain the insanity defense by shifting the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense.
It also changed the standard of proof from the prosecution's burden of proving sanity beyond a reasonable doubt to the defendant's, who was then required to prove it by clear and convincing evidence.
Parham v JR
Adversarial hearings are NOT required for the commitment of a juvenile whose parents or guardian requested the commitment
Girggs v Duke Power Company
If test scores are to be used to guide decisions on employment, placement, or promotion, those tests must be demonstrably reasonable measures of job performance
Tutor v Tutor
In custody disputes, the siblings should be kept together if possible
Crawford v. Washington
Playing out-of-court testimony to a jury, with no chance of cross-examination, DOES violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront all witnesses against them.
Foucha v. Louisiana
An insanity acquittee MUST be BOTH mentally ill and dangerous for a state to justify continued hospitalization.
Rouse v Cameron (1966)
Established that individuals involuntarily committed to a mental hospital after being found not guilty by reason of insanity have a legal right to treatment, enforceable through habeas corpus
Palsgraf v Long Island RR
Tort liability can only occur when a defendant breaches a duty of care that they owe to the plaintiff.
Lassiter v. Department of Social Services
States are NOT required to appoint counsel for parents in termination of parental rights hearings
Maryland v. Craig
Closed-circuit testimony does NOT violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment
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 and can provide responses to hypothetical questions.