Barefoot v. Estelle
Encyclopedia
Barefoot v. Estelle, is a Texas
death penalty case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the admissibility of clinical opinions given by two psychiatrist
s hired by the prosecution in answer to hypothetical questions regarding the defendant's future dangerousness and the likelihood that he would present a continuing threat to society. The American Psychiatric Association
submitted an Amicus Curiae
brief in support of the defendant's position that such testimony should be inadmissible and urging curtailment of psychiatric testimony regarding future dangerousness and a prohibition of such testimony based on hypothetical data.
In Estelle v. Smith
, 101 S. Ct. 1866 ( 1981), the Supreme Court previously ruled on a Texas death penalty case regarding the use of a psychiatric examination to determine the defendant's competency to stand
trial
to predict future dangerousness. In that case the Court held that the Fifth Amendment
's privilege against self-incrimination applied to pretrial psychiatric
examinations by a prosecution psychiatrist who later testified regarding the defendant's future
dangerousness without warning the defendant that such evidence could be used against him. The Court reasoned that although a defendant has no generalized constitutional right to remain
silent at a psychiatric examination limited to the issues of sanity or competency, full Miranda warning
s
must be given with respect to testimony concerning future dangerousness.
of a police officer
. The same Texas jury determined, in the sentencing phase of the trial, whether Barefoot should receive the death penalty. Texas statute required that the jury consider whether there was a probability that Barefoot was likely to commit future violent acts and therefore would continue to be a threat to society. Along with other evidence, the prosecution called two psychiatrists who, answering hypothetical questions, testified that Barefoot was likely to remain a danger to society. Neither psychiatrist had examined Barefoot nor asked to do so, but each summarized their professional experience as equipping them to answer the questions accurately. One psychiatrist called Barefoot a "criminal sociopath" and said there was no treatment for this condition and that Barefoot was likely to commit acts of violence in the future. The other psychiatrist testified that Barefoot had "a fairly classical, typical, sociopathic personality disorder." He placed Barefoot in the "most severe category" of sociopaths, and on a scale of one to ten, Barefoot was "above ten". The jury considered this as well as other evidence and imposed the death penalty.
The court ignored amicus briefs arguing that psychiatric evidence cannot be offered on such issues with any reasonable degree of certainty.
which rejected his argument that this use of psychiatric testimony during the sentencing phase of his trial was unconstitutional and upheld the conviction and sentence. After denials of a writ
of certiorari
and of habeas corpus
, petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus in Federal District Court raising the same objections to the use of psychiatric testimony. Although the District Court rejected his claims and denied the writ, it did issue a certificate of probable cause
. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied a second writ of habeas corpus and denied a stay of execution. The Court of Appeals also denied a stay of execution.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
to determine the accuracy of such statements.
and other medical ethicists disagree, leading some experts to conclude that a psychiatrist making such statements verges on the brink of being a quack
. Nevertheless, courts have been willing to accept such testimony despite the lack of empirical evidence that these predictions of future dangerousness are accurate.
However, forensic experts state that psychiatric testimony on ultimate questions at law
is unreliable due to the inherent limitations of current psychiatric clinical and experimental knowledge and practice. Dr. James P. Grigson, one of the psychiatrists that testified in this case, was expelled from the American Psychiatric Association and the Texas Association of Psychiatric Physicians (TAPP) for making statements in testimony on defendants he had not examined. The TAPP said his expulsion was due not only for his replies to hypothetical questions but also for predicting dangerousness with 100% certainty.
Texas
Texas is the second largest U.S. state by both area and population, and the largest state by area in the contiguous United States.The name, based on the Caddo word "Tejas" meaning "friends" or "allies", was applied by the Spanish to the Caddo themselves and to the region of their settlement in...
death penalty case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the admissibility of clinical opinions given by two psychiatrist
Psychiatrist
A psychiatrist is a physician who specializes in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. All psychiatrists are trained in diagnostic evaluation and in psychotherapy...
s hired by the prosecution in answer to hypothetical questions regarding the defendant's future dangerousness and the likelihood that he would present a continuing threat to society. The American Psychiatric Association
American Psychiatric Association
The American Psychiatric Association is the main professional organization of psychiatrists and trainee psychiatrists in the United States, and the most influential worldwide. Its some 38,000 members are mainly American but some are international...
submitted an Amicus Curiae
Amicus curiae
An amicus curiae is someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist a court in deciding a matter before it...
brief in support of the defendant's position that such testimony should be inadmissible and urging curtailment of psychiatric testimony regarding future dangerousness and a prohibition of such testimony based on hypothetical data.
In Estelle v. Smith
Estelle v. Smith
Estelle v. Smith, is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court held that, per Miranda v. Arizona , the state may not force a defendant to submit to a psychiatric examination solely for the purposes of sentencing...
, 101 S. Ct. 1866 ( 1981), the Supreme Court previously ruled on a Texas death penalty case regarding the use of a psychiatric examination to determine the defendant's competency to stand
trial
Competency evaluation (law)
In the United States criminal justice system, a competency evaluation is an assessment of the ability of a defendant to understand and rationally participate in a court process....
to predict future dangerousness. In that case the Court held that the Fifth Amendment
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215...
's privilege against self-incrimination applied to pretrial psychiatric
examinations by a prosecution psychiatrist who later testified regarding the defendant's future
dangerousness without warning the defendant that such evidence could be used against him. The Court reasoned that although a defendant has no generalized constitutional right to remain
silent at a psychiatric examination limited to the issues of sanity or competency, full Miranda warning
Miranda warning
The Miranda warning is a warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings. In Miranda v...
s
must be given with respect to testimony concerning future dangerousness.
Circumstances
Thomas Barefoot was convicted of the murderMurder
Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human being, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide...
of a police officer
Police officer
A police officer is a warranted employee of a police force...
. The same Texas jury determined, in the sentencing phase of the trial, whether Barefoot should receive the death penalty. Texas statute required that the jury consider whether there was a probability that Barefoot was likely to commit future violent acts and therefore would continue to be a threat to society. Along with other evidence, the prosecution called two psychiatrists who, answering hypothetical questions, testified that Barefoot was likely to remain a danger to society. Neither psychiatrist had examined Barefoot nor asked to do so, but each summarized their professional experience as equipping them to answer the questions accurately. One psychiatrist called Barefoot a "criminal sociopath" and said there was no treatment for this condition and that Barefoot was likely to commit acts of violence in the future. The other psychiatrist testified that Barefoot had "a fairly classical, typical, sociopathic personality disorder." He placed Barefoot in the "most severe category" of sociopaths, and on a scale of one to ten, Barefoot was "above ten". The jury considered this as well as other evidence and imposed the death penalty.
The court ignored amicus briefs arguing that psychiatric evidence cannot be offered on such issues with any reasonable degree of certainty.
Appeals
Barefoot appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal AppealsTexas Court of Criminal Appeals
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the court of last resort for all criminal matters in the State of Texas, United States. The Court, which is based in the Supreme Court Building in Downtown Austin, is composed of a Presiding Judge and eight judges....
which rejected his argument that this use of psychiatric testimony during the sentencing phase of his trial was unconstitutional and upheld the conviction and sentence. After denials of a writ
Writ
In common law, a writ is a formal written order issued by a body with administrative or judicial jurisdiction; in modern usage, this body is generally a court...
of certiorari
Certiorari
Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine, and other law. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare...
and of habeas corpus
Habeas corpus
is a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to his aid. Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, but it is now available in many nations...
, petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus in Federal District Court raising the same objections to the use of psychiatric testimony. Although the District Court rejected his claims and denied the writ, it did issue a certificate of probable cause
Probable cause
In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which an officer or agent of the law has the grounds to make an arrest, to conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest, etc. when criminal charges are being considered. It is also used to refer to the...
. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied a second writ of habeas corpus and denied a stay of execution. The Court of Appeals also denied a stay of execution.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the denial of a stay of execution by the Court of Appeals, saying that the Court of Appeals followed the procedural guidelines for handling such applications for stays of execution on habeas corpus appeals pursuant to a certificate of probable cause. The court also upheld the appellate court's finding on the merits of the case, reasoning that that clinical prediction testimony was not in every case wrong and could be refuted by opposing experts, trusting the adversarial systemAdversarial system
The adversarial system is a legal system where two advocates represent their parties' positions before an impartial person or group of people, usually a jury or judge, who attempt to determine the truth of the case...
to determine the accuracy of such statements.
Significance
The court's decision in this death penalty case was very important in influencing the legal opinion regarding psychiatric predictions of dangerousness, a position with which the American Psychiatric AssociationAmerican Psychiatric Association
The American Psychiatric Association is the main professional organization of psychiatrists and trainee psychiatrists in the United States, and the most influential worldwide. Its some 38,000 members are mainly American but some are international...
and other medical ethicists disagree, leading some experts to conclude that a psychiatrist making such statements verges on the brink of being a quack
Quack
A quack is a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess.Quack may also refer to:* Quack , an independent-comics series published by Star Reach in the 1970s...
. Nevertheless, courts have been willing to accept such testimony despite the lack of empirical evidence that these predictions of future dangerousness are accurate.
However, forensic experts state that psychiatric testimony on ultimate questions at law
Ultimate issue (law)
An ultimate issue in criminal law is a legal issue at stake in the prosecution of a crime for which an expert witness is providing testimony.-Example:...
is unreliable due to the inherent limitations of current psychiatric clinical and experimental knowledge and practice. Dr. James P. Grigson, one of the psychiatrists that testified in this case, was expelled from the American Psychiatric Association and the Texas Association of Psychiatric Physicians (TAPP) for making statements in testimony on defendants he had not examined. The TAPP said his expulsion was due not only for his replies to hypothetical questions but also for predicting dangerousness with 100% certainty.