Thursday, October 18, 2012

Dr. Death And The Violation of The Fifth Amendment: Estelle v. Smith (1981)

Ernest Smith, From Texas Monthly
Magazine, July 1978
Dr. Death makes another appearance in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case. In a post from earlier this year, I outlined the case of Barefoot v. Estelle, where Dr. James Grigson stated a defendant was so dangerous he would definitely kill again, despite never having met that defendant. Not exactly psychiatry's proudest moment--and keep in mind, this is a profession that used to scramble people's brains with an ice pick driven through their eye sockets.

In a 1973 murder case from Texas, Dr. Grigson was hired to conduct a pretrial competency evaluation. The case involved Ernest Smith, who was arrested for participating in an armed robbery where an accomplice killed a grocery store clerk. Dr. Grigson reported that Mr. Smith was competent to stand trial and he labeled Mr. Smith a "severe sociopath." Interestingly, Mr. Smith's defense team had no idea that Dr. Grigson had evaluated him until they received the competency report filed with the court (this would never happen today. The process for obtaining a competency evaluation is clear and open).

Mr. Smith's case went to trial, and a jury convicted him. Prosecutors sought the death penalty, and one of the criteria the jury needed to weigh was the future dangerousness of the convicted defendant. Prosecutors called Dr. Grigson as a witness, who had only met with Mr. Smith for the pretrial, court-ordered competency evaluation. He testified that Mr. Smith remained highly dangerous and thus posed a continued risk to society. But really, did you expect Dr. Grigson to have any other opinion? He would have testified that a potted plant posed a danger to society if the death penalty were in question.

Based largely on Dr. Grigson's testimony, the jury decided the prosecution had made its case, and Mr. Smith was sentenced to death.

As is expected in every death sentence case, Mr. Smith appealed his conviction (in fact, an appeal was mandatory in Texas at the time). The case worked its way through the courts and ended up at the U.S. Supreme Court in October of 1980. Mr. Smith argued that by using the forced competency evaluation in his sentencing phase, his Fifth Amendment Rights against self incrimination were violated.

The Court agreed with Mr. Smith's argument. In their decision from 1981, the Court held, "(1) the admission of the psychiatrist's testimony violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination, since the defendant was not advised before the pretrial examination that he had a right to remain silent and that any statement he made could be used against him at the sentencing proceeding, the defendant's statements to the psychiatrist when faced while in custody with a court-ordered psychiatric examination not being given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influence so that they could be used at the penalty phase only if the defendant had been apprised of his rights and had knowingly decided to waive them, and (2) the admission of the psychiatrist's testimony violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel, since defense counsel were not notified in advance that the psychiatric examination would encompass the issue of their client's future dangerousness and the defendant was denied the assistance of his attorney in making the significant decision of whether to submit to the examination and to what end the psychiatrist's findings could be employed, the Sixth Amendment right attaching when the doctor examined the defendant in jail and that interview proving to be a "critical stage" of the aggregate proceedings against the defendant."

In other words, the Court was insistent that Mr. Smith's Fifth Amendment Right had been violated because he was never informed during the court-ordered (in other words, forced) evaluation that he had the right to remain silent and that information he provided to the evaluator would be used against him at sentencing. And, the Court took their decision one step further: they held that Mr. Smith's Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel was violated because his defense team was never notified that the competency evaluation would be used to sentence him to death.

In subsequent cases now codified into state laws, data collected in court ordered competency evaluations cannot be used during the trial or sentencing phases of an individual's court case, unless the defendant raises the issue of his mental health as part of his defense and rebuttal testimony is needed.

Dr. James Grigson, trying to blind the photographer,
from Texas Monthly Magazine, July 1978
Interestingly, in a Texas Court of Criminal Appeals opinion on this case, Judge Wendell Odom wrote, "Dr. Grigson's qualifications as a psychiatrist may be fine, but I find no testimony which qualifies him as an expert in predicting the future...It is my opinion that such future-telling testimony is admissible under no theory of law and prejudicial beyond belief...I am unable to find that much of the testimony offered was from this side of the twilight zone," (From Texas Monthly Magazine, 1978).

Thanks for reading-- Max Wachtel, Ph.D.


Forensic science helps in finding the hidden truth, which we can't see,the way it works is awesome.

A different sentencing continuing was then held before the same jury as required by Texas law. At such a procedure the jury must resolve three basic issues to figure out if or not capital punishment will be forced.

thesis writing service UK

This comment has been removed by the author.

I wonder if dr. Phil McGraw was trained by this doctor death? Texas should be a country outside of America.

It's a valuable piece of information about the different aspects of laws. i prefer some of your ideas to write my law thesis. It will be available in thesis writing service

I always keep in mind the information you have shared. The theory of law and prejudicial are always beyond the belief. I want to write such informative article by taking help from case study report writing service.

It was a tremendous write-up and shares some thrilling psychological elements. It explains some psychological facts by using some examples from real life. Recently, I have seen some brilliant psychology related articles in essay writing service USA

طرق كشف تسربات المياه بالرياض

طرق الكشف عن تسربات المياه التقليدية من الطرق السيئة التى تحتاج الى الكسر والتبليط وتحتاج الى الكثير من الوقت والجهد والاموال لذلك قررت شركتنا ان تعتمد على افضل الالات والاجهزة المميزة التى تساعد فى التعرف على مكان التسرب من خلال افضل الاجهزة فيقوم العاملين بالتحرك بالجهاز المميز والتى يساعد فى التعرف على مكان التسرب فى اقل وقت ممكن فالجهاز يصدر ذبذبات يساعد فى القيام بالتعرف على مكان التسرب
تعد شركة الاول افضل شركة كشف تسربات المياه بالاحساء
- شركة كشف تسربات المياه بالقطيف
- و افضل شركة كشف تسربات المياه بالدمام
- وافضل شركة كشف تسربات المياه بالجبيل
- و افضل شركة كشف تسربات المياه بالرياض
افضل شركة نظافة بالرياض
- و شركة كشف تسربات المياه بالمدينة المنورة
افضل شركة صيانة مكيفات بالرياض
شركة ترميم فلل بالرياض
واسعارها في متناول الجميع ومن الهام التاكد دائما من خلو منزلك من تسربات المياه حتى لا تتعرض لمشاكل مثل انهيار وتصدع المبانى الاول افضل شركة كشف تسربات المياه بالرياض تستخدم اجهزه الكترونية اكشف التسرب بالذبذبات وتغطى كافة مناطق الرياض فهى افضل شركة كشف تسربات المياه شرق الرياض

This is an fiction like blog. It is very interesting. Keep posting blogs. Best Wishes.

Dissertation Writing Service

This comment has been removed by the author.

Hey it was amazing. Thanks for share with us. When I read this, I got feeling that I am reading a fictional story.

research paper writing service

This blog is really interesting. Enjoyed reading it. Thank you buy essays online

Post a Comment


Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More