Disability Law Outline

BROOKS: DISABILITY LAW FALL 2011
 
 
 
2. Civil and Criminal Commitment Standards
 
☞ O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975)
            Fact
                        O’Connor (state official) confined Donaldson against his will in state hospital.
                        Donaldson was dangerous neither to himself nor others.
            Held; monetary damage + punitive damage
A finding of “mental illness” alone cannot justify a State’s locking a person up against his will. It is a violation of constitutional right to Freedom
            Whether the term is indefinite or temporary
            The nature of treatment is irrelevant.
            Whether P’s intent was “in good faith” is not defense
Mere public intolerance or animosity cannot constitutionally justify the deprivation of a person’s physical liberty.
State official immunity may be applicable but is not issued here.
 
☞ Foucha v. Louisiana, 112 S.Ct. 1780 (1992)
            Fact
                        Faucha was criminally charged but was acquitted for insanity
            Issue
                        Whether State can confine criminal acquittee as insanity
            Hold
                        Permits confinement of an insanity acquittee based on dangerousness        
–          Danger is not enough alone
            alone (Jones v. U.S 463 U.S. 354)
Due Process requires that to commit an individual to a mental institution in a civil proceeding, the State should prove by clear and convincing evidence the two statutory preconditions to commitment: that the person sought to be committed is mentally ill and that he requires hospitalization for his own welfare and protection of others. (Addington v. Texas, 441 US 418)
However, when a person charged with having committed a crime is found not guilty by reason of insanity, state may commit that person without satisfying the Addington burden and requires to prove two facts by preponderance of the evidence
            (1) the D committed an act that constitutes a criminal offenses, and
            (2) he committed the act because of mental illness
The term is limited to until he is either not mentally ill or not dangerous
If state want to detain more than possible penal term from the criminal act, the State was required to afford the protections constitutionally required in a civil commitment proceeding.
            Purpose of confinement
                        i) rehabilitation
                        ii) treatment
The Due Process bars State from certain arbitrary, wrongful action ‘regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.’
            => no punitive punishment for insane people
 
☞ Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979)
            Fact
Appellant’s mother filed a petition for his indefinite commitment to a state mental hospital.
Jury instruction that jury determines whether, based on “clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence,” appellant was mentally ill and required hospitalization for his own welfare and protection or the protection of others.
Appellant contended that trial court should employ “beyond reasonable doubt” standard of proof
            History
                        Trial court
                                    Clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence => for state
                        Appeal court
                                    Beyond reasonable doubt => for appellant
                        State Supreme Court
                                    Preponderance of evidence => for state
Held
“Clear and convincing” standard of proof is required by the Fourth Amendment in a civil proceeding brought under state law to commit an individual involuntarily for an indefinite period to a state mental hospital.
            1) higher than preponderance of evidence
=> confinement is similar to criminal punishment, so require a higher standard than civil case.
            2) lower than beyond reasonable doubt standard of proof
                        Due Process does not require this standard.
=> even if there is erroneous confinement, there is a chance that it can be corrected.
=> psychiatrist cannot prove a person’s mental state in the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
The term “unequivocal” is constitutionally required.
 
☞ Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972)
            Fact
                        Indiana procedure for pretrial commitment of incompetent criminal D
                                    D is incompetent to stand trial
                        It also has procedure for “feeble minded man” or “mentally ill person”
                        Jackson, mentally defective deaf mute, was charged for criminal offense
                                    He was committed indefinitely to become sane
                                    It was nearly impossible to be sane because of his disability
Held; the indefinite confinement deprived him of Due Process and subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment.
1) The standard applied to D that a more lenient commitment and a more stringent standard of release than those generally applicable to all other persons not charged with offenses deprived petitioner of equal protection
2) Indefinite commitment of a criminal D solely on account of his lack of capacity to stand trial violates due process
=> requires release or other hearing when found that competency was not foreseeable
NATURE AND DURATION OF CONFINEMENT MUST BE REASONABLE TO THE PURPOSE OF RECOVERING THE CAPACITY TO STAND TRIAL.
 
☞ Jones v. U.S., 463 U.S. 354 (1983)
            Fact
                        Jones was criminally charged and acquitted by a defense of insanity
                        Difference with Jackson
                                    Jackson did not stand trial due to his insanity
                                    Jones used insanity as a defense at trial and was acquitted
            Petitioner’s argument and holding
The trial courts standard “preponderance of evidence” deviated from the decision of Addington which is “clear and convincing evidence” (Equal protection between the civilly committed insane person and criminally committed insane person)
=> Addington was civil commitment and this is criminal offense case. Different standard is justified. Therefore the issue in this case is Due Process not Equal Protection
=> D advanced the insanity defense voluntarily
            Less danger of misjudgment
                        Automatic confinement was not constitutional
=> Congress determined that the finding of two facts constitute an adequate basis for hospitalizing the acquittee as a dangerous and mentally ill person.
                                                (i) D committed an act that constitutes a criminal offense, and
                                                (ii) he committed the act because of mental illness.  
                                    => A hearing is provided within 50 days of the confinement
He has been hospitalized longer than he could have been incarcerated if convicted
=> the nature of commitment not the criminal act is related with the term of commitment
If not