Frendak v. United States
Encyclopedia
Frendak v. United States, 408 A.2d 364 (D.C. 1979) is a landmark case
in which United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
decided that a judge could not impose an insanity defense over the defendant
's objections.
hearings, the defendant was adjudicated competent
, although in the opinion of several experts
she was likely insane
when she committed the crime
. However, Frendak refused to use the insanity defense as she felt a hospital was worse than any prison. She attempted suicide
, went on hunger strike
s and refused medication to underscore her protests. However, she was forced by the court to plead insanity. Thus, in this case a competent defendant was not allowed to reject the use of the insanity defense.
Using the U.S. Supreme Court
decisions in North Carolina v. Alford
and Faretta v. California
, the court concluded that
The court listed several disadvantages to choosing the insanity defense, including:
The court therefore limited any further competence inquiry to an evaluation of the defendant's specific competency to waive the insanity defense.
The Frendak rationale, that a judge may not impose a sanity defense over the objections of the defendant, has been used mostly in federal cases. Some states have endorsed less elaborate procedures. For example, if a judge rules that the waiver of the insanity defense is not voluntary and informed, yet nonetheless the defense is imposed over the defendant's objections, then a separate counsel must be appointed to argue issues pertaining to insanity issues, while the defendant's counsel presents the arguments the defendant desires.
However, as of 2002, seventeen jurisdictions permitted an insanity defense to be entered over the objections of the defendant. Thus these jurisdictions are, in effect, saying that a defendant who has been found competent to stand trial is not competent to rationally select his trial plea. Therefore a separate competency to refuse the insanity defense would have to be held that is similar to an evaluation of the defendant's mental state at the time of the offense.
Realistically, because of the Supreme Court's holding in Godinez v. Moran
, it is most likely that the court would hold that if a defendant is competent to stand trial, then he is also competent to waive the insanity defense, as the two competencies are equivalent.
Godinez v. Moran was overturned by the Supreme Court decision in Indiana v. Edwards
in 2008.
Landmark decision
Landmark court decisions establish new precedents that establish a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially change the interpretation of existing law...
in which United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit known informally as the D.C. Circuit, is the federal appellate court for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Appeals from the D.C. Circuit, as with all the U.S. Courts of Appeals, are heard on a...
decided that a judge could not impose an insanity defense over the defendant
Defendant
A defendant or defender is any party who is required to answer the complaint of a plaintiff or pursuer in a civil lawsuit before a court, or any party who has been formally charged or accused of violating a criminal statute...
's objections.
Circumstances
Paula Frendak shot a coworker. After four competencyCompetency 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....
hearings, the defendant was adjudicated competent
Adjudicative competence
Adjudicative competence, also referred to as competence to stand trial, is a legal construct describing the criminal defendant's ability to understand and participate in legal proceedings. This includes the defendant's current ability to participate in various pleas and waivers of rights. It is...
, although in the opinion of several experts
Expert witness
An expert witness, professional witness or judicial expert is a witness, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have expertise and specialised knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially and legally...
she was likely insane
Insanity
Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms, including becoming a danger to themselves and others, though not all such acts are considered insanity...
when she committed the crime
Crime
Crime is the breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority can ultimately prescribe a conviction...
. However, Frendak refused to use the insanity defense as she felt a hospital was worse than any prison. She attempted suicide
Parasuicide
Parasuicide refers to suicide attempts or gestures and self-harm where there is no result in death. It is a non-fatal act in which a person deliberately causes injury to himself or ingests any prescribed or generally recognised therapeutic dose in excess...
, went on hunger strike
Hunger strike
A hunger strike is a method of non-violent resistance or pressure in which participants fast as an act of political protest, or to provoke feelings of guilt in others, usually with the objective to achieve a specific goal, such as a policy change. Most hunger strikers will take liquids but not...
s and refused medication to underscore her protests. However, she was forced by the court to plead insanity. Thus, in this case a competent defendant was not allowed to reject the use of the insanity defense.
Decision
On appeal the decision was reversed. The judge may not impose the insanity defense upon an unwilling defendant if an intelligent defendant voluntarily wishes to forgo the defense. The court said that a defendant may feel hospital is worse than prison, that the term of incarceration may be longer, that the stigma and legal consequences of a criminal or an insanity defenses are different.Using the U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
decisions in North Carolina v. Alford
North Carolina v. Alford
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that there are no constitutional barriers in place to prevent a judge from accepting a guilty plea from a defendant who wants to plead guilty while still protesting his innocence...
and Faretta v. California
Faretta v. California
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.-Facts of the case:...
, the court concluded that
The court listed several disadvantages to choosing the insanity defense, including:
- an insanity acquittal may increase the period of confinement over a prison sentence
- better treatment may be received in a prison than a mental hospital
- the defendant may want to avoid the stigma associated with a mental disorder
- commitment may result in loss of other rights, such as a driver's license
- the defendant may regard the crime as a political or religious act
The court therefore limited any further competence inquiry to an evaluation of the defendant's specific competency to waive the insanity defense.
Significance
This decision examines the quality of the defendant's decision. If the defendant appears to be intelligently and voluntarily waiving the insanity defense, the trial court should not deny this. However, the trial court should look into whether the defendant has been properly informed of the effects of their decision as well as the alternatives available to them. Thus the nature of such an evaluation would be similar to a compentency to stand trial evaluation.The Frendak rationale, that a judge may not impose a sanity defense over the objections of the defendant, has been used mostly in federal cases. Some states have endorsed less elaborate procedures. For example, if a judge rules that the waiver of the insanity defense is not voluntary and informed, yet nonetheless the defense is imposed over the defendant's objections, then a separate counsel must be appointed to argue issues pertaining to insanity issues, while the defendant's counsel presents the arguments the defendant desires.
However, as of 2002, seventeen jurisdictions permitted an insanity defense to be entered over the objections of the defendant. Thus these jurisdictions are, in effect, saying that a defendant who has been found competent to stand trial is not competent to rationally select his trial plea. Therefore a separate competency to refuse the insanity defense would have to be held that is similar to an evaluation of the defendant's mental state at the time of the offense.
Realistically, because of the Supreme Court's holding in Godinez v. Moran
Godinez v. Moran
Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 , was a landmark decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if a defendant was competent to stand trial, they were automatically competent to plead guilty or waive the right to legal counsel.-Circumstances:...
, it is most likely that the court would hold that if a defendant is competent to stand trial, then he is also competent to waive the insanity defense, as the two competencies are equivalent.
Godinez v. Moran was overturned by the Supreme Court decision in Indiana v. Edwards
Indiana v. Edwards
In Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 , the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the standard for competency to stand trial was not linked to the standard for competency to represent oneself. The Court had recognized these two rights separately for some time. In Dusky v. United States, ,...
in 2008.