The Register Report, Fall 2006: Competencies Legal Perspectives: The New Supreme Court by: Steven R. Smith, J.D. Click to Download PDF File Return to Table of Contents

The 2005 Term of the Supreme Court that began on October 3, 2005, and ended June 29, 2006, was a time of change. A new Chief Justice, John Roberts, was confirmed shortly before the Term began, and a new Associate Justice, Samuel Alito, Jr., was nominated and confirmed at the end of January.

Justice Alito replaced Justice O’Connor, who continued to hear cases until Justice Alito began his service. This created some level of complexity because a justice is included in a decision only if he or she both participates in the argument and is on the Court when the decision is announced. The vote of Justice O’Connor, therefore, was not included in those cases that she heard, but that were announced by the Court after February 1, 2006. Justice Alito’s vote was counted only in those cases he heard after that date.

These changes were the first in the Court in 11 years. The familiar patterns of the Court were, therefore, disrupted to a degree. There were a number of important cases decided during this Term. The Court:

Held that a state may constitutionally provide for a narrow insanity defense and limit mental expert testimony regarding the ability to form the intent required for the crime.1

Determined that parents who prevail under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are not entitled to a reimbursement of fees for mental health and education experts used in the case.2 It also held that parents generally have the burden of proof in IDEA cases.3

Considered the mechanism by which defendants may reopen their cases after sentencing, based on later-discovered DNA and similar evidence, in order to prove their actual innocence.4

Reviewed the applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act to prisoners.5

Decided several cases involving searches and seizures, including a broad right to search parolees without specific cause.6

This article will first discuss these and related cases. It will then turn to several other important decisions, including those involving health insurance reimbursement, abortion, employment liability, immigration, military recruitment on university campuses and military detainees. The article will conclude by analyzing the 2005 Term and considering the direction and future of the Court.

The Insanity Defense, Criminal Responsibility and Mental Health Experts

The insanity defense and related issues regarding the criminal responsibility of defendants with mental disorders have been matters of controversy for centuries. In Clark v. Arizona the Supreme Court clarified what states are constitutionally permitted to do in criminal trials involving defendants with significant mental impairment.7

Rules regarding the insanity defense and criminal responsibility are generally set by state law for state criminal offenses. Federal rules apply only to the trial of federal crimes in federal courts. The Due Process Clause of the Constitution, however, provides some federal limits on what states may do in criminal trials. The U.S. Supreme Court has decided very few cases involving the insanity defense so the Clark case was important, not only for its specific holding but because of the considerable latitude it suggested states have in defining criminal responsibility.

Eric Clark shot and killed a Flagstaff police officer, and was convicted of first-degree murder for “intentionally or knowingly killing a law enforcement officer in the line of duty.”8 Clark was initially found incompetent to stand trial. Two years later, however, the trial court found that he had been restored to competency, and he was tried.

Both incompetency and insanity are based on impairment resulting from mental illness or incapacity, but they address different mental competencies at different times. Unlike insanity and criminal responsibility, competency to stand trial focuses on whether at the time of trial the defendants are able to understand the charges against them and participate in their own defense. Insanity and criminal responsibility, on the other hand, raise the question of whether at the time the crime was committed the defendants were able to understand what they were doing was wrong or were unable to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.9

Defendants found to be incompetent to stand trial may be tried later after competency is restored. That was the case with Clark. At his murder trial mental health experts agreed that he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the crime. The defense expert testified that as a result of the paranoid schizophrenia Clark was incapable of understanding right from wrong and was insane at the time of the crime. The prosecution mental health professional testified that in his opinion the paranoid schizophrenia did not keep Clark from appreciating the wrongfulness of his conduct.10

Clark presented two defenses, both based on his mental illness. First, he raised the insanity defense. Second, he claimed that his mental illness prevented him from being able to form the specific intent required by the Arizona criminal law. (The crime required that he “knowingly and intentionally” killed a law enforcement officer.) Clark was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release for 25 years.11

On appeal Clark raised two bases on which his conviction should be overturned. First, he said, Arizona had adopted a narrow form of the insanity defense that was in violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Second, he claimed that the judge’s decision to exclude certain mental health expert testimony was in error. Clark had offered that testimony to demonstrate that it would have been impossible for him to have the “knowing and intentional” state of mind required for the conviction of first-degree murder. In a six to three decision, the Supreme Court upheld Clark’s conviction.12

The Supreme Court began its consideration of the insanity defense with a 19th-century case. It defined the test for insanity as being whether the defendant, as a result of mental illness, was unable to know what he was doing or was unable to determine right from wrong.13 These are sometimes described as “cognitive” and “moral” tests for insanity. Over the years many jurisdictions have also adopted various forms of “volitional” tests for insanity that essentially ask whether the defendant, because of mental illness, was able to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. Jurisdictions infrequently have adopted an insanity defense that excuses criminal conduct if it was “the product” of a mental illness. continued

Page 1

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12