Advertisement

Criminal Confessions and the Mentally Disabled

Colorado v Connelly and the Future of Free Will
  • Michael L. Perlin
Chapter
  • 69 Downloads
Part of the Critical Issues in American Psychiatry and the Law book series (CIAP, volume 5)

Abstract

Few sets of tea leaves are examined, analyzed, and pored over as closely as any United States Supreme Court decision involving what is generically known as a Miranda issue.1 The scholarly and popular debates that have raged since a badly fractured Warren Court attempted to establish a “bright line” test for admissibility of confessions in Miranda v Arizona2 have given Miranda a symbolic value that extends far beyond the decision’s actual impact on police interrogation.3 Although the Burger (and now the Rehnquist) Courts have expressed dissatisfaction with the constitutional and philosophical underpinnings of the doctrine, the “inescapably political overtones” of an outright reversal4 make it likely that Miranda will not be overruled “at this late date.”5 Even though the doctrine—by the Court’s own reckoning—remains “murky,”6 and its empirical impact remains questionable,7 it remains a “punch-drunk fighter, reeling on the ropes but not yet counted out.”8

Keywords

Supra Note Mental Disability Criminal Procedure State Court National Mental Health 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    For a recent sampling, see, e.g., Schulhofer: Reconsidering Miranda. 54 U Chi Law Rev 435 (1987); Bradley: Criminal procedure in the Rehnquist court: Has the Rehnquisi- tion begun? 62 Ind Law Rev 273 (1987); Saltzburg: Miranda v Arizona revisited: Constitutional law or judicial fiat? 26 Washburn Law J 1 (1986); Ogletree: Are confes-sions really good for the soul? A proposal to Mirandize Miranda. 100 Harv Law Rev 1826 (1987). For a stark point-counterpoint debate, compare Caplan: Questioning Miranda. 38 Vand Law Rev 1417 (1985), to White: Defending Miranda: A reply to Professor Caplan. 39 Vand Law Rev 1 (1986).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    384 U.S. 436 (1966). As originally articulated, the Miranda rules stipulated:[T]he prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from the custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive ef-fectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking, there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned.Id. at 444–445 (footnote omitted). Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    See, e.g., Sonenshein: Miranda and the Burger court: Trends and countertrends.13 Loy U Chi Law J 405, 415 (1982); Israel: Criminal procedure, the Burger court, and the legacy of the Warren court. 75 Mich Law Rev 1319, 1374 (1977) (“Although the value of the Miranda ruling in effectively protecting the suspect’s self-incrimination privilege is debatable, the decision has a symbolic quality that extends far beyond its practical impact upon police interrogation methods”).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    See Stone: The Miranda doctrine in the Burger Court. [1977] Sup Ct Rev 99, 169.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rhode Island v Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (305) (1980) (Burger, CJ, concurring).On the other hand, the doctrine has been significantly reduced in a series of recent cases. See, e.g., New York v Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 653–660 (1984); Oregon v Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 306–314 (1985); Connecticut v Barrett, 107 S. Ct. 828, 831–833 (1987); see generally, Note: Miranda and the state constitution: State courts take a stand. 39 Vand Law Rev 1693, 1714–1717 (1986) (“Vanderbilt Note”); but see, Weisberg: Foreword: Criminal procedure doctrine: Some versions of the skeptical. 76 J Crim Law Criminol 832, 840 (1985), noting the Burger Court decisions reaffirming defendants’ rights in interrogation cases—e.g., Brewer v Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977)—that we “tend to forget or deny”.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elstad, 470 U.S. at 316.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    See, e.g., LaFave, Israel: Criminal Procedure §6.5(c), at 483–484 “Miranda has had little effect upon clearance and conviction rates”. St. Paul, Minn, West’s, 1984.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Perlin ML: The supreme court, the mentally disabled criminal defendant, and sym¬bolic values: Random decisions, hidden rationales, or “Doctrinal abyss”? 29 Ariz Law Rev 1,92 (1987) (“Doctrinal Abyss”).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Compare, e.g., North Carolina v Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (1979) (explicit statement not necessary as predicate for Miranda waiver); Quarles, supra (“public safety” exception to Miranda); Elstad, supra (initial failure to administer Miranda warnings does not “taint” subsequent admissions made after warnings properly given); Moran v Burbine, 106 S. Ct. 1135 (1986) (Miranda waiver not vitiated by failure of police to inform defendant that attorney was attempting to contact him); and Colorado v Spring, 107 S. Ct. 851 (1987) (mere silence by law enforcement official as to subject matter of interrogation not “trickery” sufficient to invalidate Miranda waiver) with e.g., Edwards v Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (“heavy burden” on state to prove that Miranda waiver—after assertion of rights—was voluntary, intelligent, and knowing); and Shea v Louisiana, 105 S. Ct. 1065 (1985) (applying Edwards retroactively to cases pending on direct appeal).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    See, e.g., Estelle v Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981) (admission of psychiatrist’s testimony at penalty phase of capital punishment case violated defendant’s privilege against self- incrimination where defendant not advised prior to pretrial psychiatric examination of right to remain silent); Miller v Fenton, 106 U.S. 445 (1985) (voluntariness of confession is not issue of fact presumed to be correct in subsequent habeas corpus proceeding; interrogating officer throught defendant had “mental problem”); Wain- Jmight v Greenfield, 106 S. Ct. 634 (1986) (state may not use postarrest, post -Miranda silence as evidence of defendant’s sanity).For a recent attack on Greenfield from a prosecutor’s perspective, see Daley, Fryklund: The insanity defense and the “testimony by proxy” problem. 21 Valparaiso Law Rev 497 (1987).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    361 U.S. 199 (1960).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Id. at 207.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    367 U.S. 568 (1961).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Id. at 581. See also, e.g., Bram v United States, 168 U.S. 532, 547 (1897) (citing Hale).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    See, e.g., Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), Brief for Petitioner, at 3 (defendant.diagnosed by court-appointed psychiatrist as schizophrenic); see also, State v Miranda, 401 P.2d 716, 718 (Ariz. Sup. Ct. 1965) (request for sanity determination).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    372 U.S. 293 (1963).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Blackburn, 361 U.S. at 207.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Townsend, 372 U.S. at 307, quoting Reck v Pate, 367 U.S. 433, 440 (1961), and Blackburn, 361 U.S. at 208.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    107 S. Ct. 515 (1986).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parry: Involuntary confessions based on mental impairments. 11 Ment Phys Dis Law Rptr 2 (1987).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    See Connelly, 107 S. Ct. at 525 (Brennan, J, dissenting).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    For the classic survey article on the concept of mental illness in assessing free will in a confessions context, see Grano: Voluntariness, free will, and the law of confessions. 65 VaLaw Rev 859(1979).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Connelly, 107 S. Ct. at 519–522.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Id. at 523–524.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Id. at 523.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Id. at 518.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    Id. at 518–519.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Id. at 519.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
  34. 34.
  35. 35.
  36. 36.
    See People v Connelly, 702 P.2d 722, 728 (1985).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Id., 106 S. Ct. 785 (1986).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Colorado v Connelly, No. 85–660, Amicus Brief of APA, at 3.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
  40. 40.
    Neither the American Psychiatric Association nor the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law filed a brief in Connelly.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    See, e.g., Mills v Rogers, 457 U.S. 291, 292 n.* (1982) (right to refuse treatment); Rivers v Katz, 504 N.Y.S. 2d 74, 76 (Ct. App. 1986) (right to refuse treatment).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    See, e.g., Ake v Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 70 n.* (1985) (right to psychiatric assistance in presentation of insanity defense).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    See Connelly, 107 S. Ct. at 524.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Justice Blackmun concurred in part and in judgment; Justice Stevens concurred in part and dissented in part; Justices Brennan and Marshall dissented.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    297 U.S. 278 (1936).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Connelly, 107 S. Ct. at 520 and id. n. 1, citing, inter alia, Mincey v Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978); Greenwald v Wisconsin, 390 U.S. 519 (1968); Beecher v Alabama, 389 U.S. 35 (1967); Culombe, supra.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Connelly, 107 S. Ct. at 520.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
  49. 49.
    Id. at 521.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Id., citing United States v Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 906–913 (1984). For a recent, thoughtful analysis of the role of the Leon decision in the Supreme Court’s new “major- itarianism” doctrine, see Finer: Gates, Leon, and the compromise of adjudicative fairness: Of aggresive majoritarianism, willful deafness, and the new exception to the exclusionary rule. (Part 2), 34 Cleve St Law Rev 199 (1985).Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Connelly, 107 S. Ct. at 521.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Id. at 522.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Id., quoting Lisenba v California, 314 U.S. 219, 236 (1941).Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    404 U.S. 477, 488 (1972).Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    444 U.S. 469 (1980).Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    441 U.S. 369, 373 (1979).Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Connelly, 107 S. Ct. at 522–523.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Id. at 523 (italics added).Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Id. at 522.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Id. at 522–523, quoting Connelly, 702 P.2d at 729.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Connelly, 107 S. Ct. at 523, citing United States v Washington, 431 U.S. 181, (1977).Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Connelly, 107 S. Ct. at 523 (italics added).Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Id., quoting Elstad, 470 U.S. at 305.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Connelly, 107 S. Ct. at 524 (italics added).Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Id. quoting Beckwith v United States, 425 U.S. 341, 345 (1976).Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Connelly, 107 S. Ct. at 524.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
  68. 68.
    Connelly, 107 S. Ct. at 525, quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Connelly,107 S. Ct. at 525.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
  71. 71.
    See Moran, discussed supra note 9.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Moran, 106 S. Ct. at 1141.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
  74. 74.
    Connelly, 107 S. Ct. at 525 n.5.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Id. at 525–526.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Id. at 526.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Id. at 527. Here, Justice Brennan relied, in part, on the citation to Hawkins’s Pleas of the Crown, see Br am, supra, note 14.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Connelly, 107 S. Ct. at 527, and see also cases cited id. at 527–528 n.2.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Id. at 529 n.3.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
  81. 81.
    Id. at 529.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
  83. 83.
    Id. at 530.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
  85. 85.
    Id. at 530–531.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Id. at 531.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Id., quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    See 404 U.S. at 490.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    See Connelly, 107 S. Ct. at 531–532.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Id. at 532–533, quoting Connelly, 702 P.2d at 729.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    See Moran, 106 S. Ct. at 1141.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Connelly, 107 S. Ct. at 533.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Connelly, 107 S. Ct. at 520.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Id. at 521.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    See, e.g., Blackburn, 361 U.S. at 200–204 (detailing the defendant’s “lengthy siege” of mental illness); Townsend, 372 U.S. at 299–306 (recounting the physiological and psychological responses of the severely disabled defendant to the state-induced and - ordered injection of a truth serum drug).Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    106 S. Ct. at 1141.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
  98. 98.
    Connelly, 107 S. Ct. at 525 n.5 (Stevens, J, concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part).Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Moran, 106 S. Ct. at 1141 (italics added).Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    See Connelly, 107 S. Ct. at 532–533 (Brennan, J, dissenting).Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    See e.g., Inbau Reid Buckley: Criminal Interrogation and Confessions ed 3 1986, p 57.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    See, e.g., Wulach: The assessment of competency to waive Miranda rights. 9 J Psych Law 209 (1981); see also, Fourth circuit review. 41 Wash Lee Law Rev 493, 636–654 (1984) (effect of mental disability on determining voluntariness of juvenile’s confession).Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    See Metzner: Colorado v Connelly. Confessions of the mentally ill. 12 Newsletter Am Acad Psych Law 4, 7 (April 1987).Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    See Connelly, Brief of Amicus APA, at 25 (“behavioral science does not use or rely upon the concepts of ‘volition’ or ‘free will’”).Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    See, e.g., Connelly, Brief of Amicus FREE, at 56–57 n.54 (citing contrary sources, including Stein Contemporary Psychotherapies [1961], and Frank Persuasion and Healing [1973).Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    See, e.g., McReady v Blue Shield of Virginia, 457 U.S. 465. 478–479 (1982) (discussing alleged conspiracy by state psychiatric association and Blue Shield plan “to halt encroachment by psychologists into a market that physicians and psychiatrists sought to preserve for themselves”).Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    See, e.g., Estelle, 451 U.S. at 472; Addington v Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 430 (1979); Vitek v Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 495 (1980); see also, Ford v Wainwright, 106 S. Ct. 2595 (1986).Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Ake, 470 U.S. at 79.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Connelly, 107 S. Ct. at 519.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    See, e.g., Connelly, Brief of Amicus FREE, at 27–32, and also sources cited id. at nn.21–23; see generally, Kolb Brodie: Modern Clinical Psychiatry at ed 10, 1982, at 126 (“Hallucinations conveying a command are often convincing and compelling. They may lead to direct and dangerous action. Considerations of reality are of little weight in comparison to their influence”); Kaplan Sadock (eds): Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry ed 4 1985, at 574 (hallucinating schizophrenic patients often act on their inner perceptions “as though they were more compelling that the external realities”).Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Connelly, 107 S. Ct. at 519.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    See, e.g., Michigan v Jackson, 106 S. Ct. 1404, 1411 (1986) (Burger, CJ, concurring in judgment), quoting Reik: The Compulsion to Confess 1959.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    See Connelly, 107 S. Ct. at 524 (Blackmun, J, concurring in part and concurring in judgment).Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    See, e.g., In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 368–372 (1970) (Harlan, J, concurring).Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    See, e.g., “Vanderbilt Note”, supra note 5, at 1730–1734; Latzer: Limits of the new federalism: State court responses, 14 Search Seizure Law Rep 89 (1987); Connelly, 107 S. Ct. at 533 (Brennan, J, dissenting) (“today’s holding does not, of course, preclude a contrary resolution of this case based upon the state’s separate interpretation of its own constitution”).Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    See, e.g., State v McGonigle, 401 N.W. 2d 39, 41 (Iowa Sup. Ct. 1987); People v Rhodes, 729 P. 2d 982, 984–985 (Colo. Sup. Ct. 1986).Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    See, e.g., State v Dailey, 351 S.E. 2d 431, 434 n.2 (W. Va. Sup. Ct. App. 1986); State v Vincik, 398 N.W. 2d 788, 792–793 (Iowa Sup. Ct. 1987).Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    See State v Clappes, 401 N.W. 2d 759 (Wis. Sup. Ct. 1987); id. at 769 (Heffernan J, concurring); id. at 770 (Abrahamson, J, dissenting).Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    See, e.g., United States v Phillips, 812 F. 2d 1355 (11 Cir. 1987); United States v Rohrbach, 813 F. 2d 142(8 Cir. 1987); and United States ex rel. Link v Lane, 811 F. 2d 1166 (7 Cir.1987; but see, Biller v Lopes, 655 F. Supp. 292 (D. Conn. 1987) (confession involuntary due to coercion).Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Alschuler: Failed pragmatism: Reflections on the Burger court. 100 Haw Law Rev 1436, 1442 (1987).Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Compare, e.g., Estelle; Greenfield; Ake; Ford, all supra, with Barefoot v Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983); Jones v United States, 463 U.S. 354 (1983); Smith v Murray, 106 S. Ct. 2678 (1986); and Allen v Illinois, 106 S. Ct. 2988 (1986); see generally, “Doctrinal Abyss”, supra note 8.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Parry, supra note 20, at 5.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    See “Doctrinal Abyss”, supra note 8, at 281.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    See Perlin ML: State constitutions and statutes as sources of rights for the mentally disabled: The last frontier? 20 Loyola LA Law Rev 1249, 1264–1266 n.99 (1987).Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    See, e.g., Frendak v United States, 408 A.2d 364 (D.C. Ct. App. 1979); State v Kahn, 417 A.2d 585 (N.J. App. Div. 1980).Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    The Supreme Court has recently granted certiorari in Satterwhite v Texas, No. 86–6284, on the question of the adequacy of warnings to be given to a criminal defendant as to the specific purposes of a psychiatric interview.Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    See, e.g., Perlin ML: After Hinckley: Old myths, new realities and the future of the insanity defense. Directions in Psychiatry, 1985 vol 5, lesson 22.Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Metzner, supra note 103, at 7.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    See, e.g., Mills, 457 U.S. at 299 (“The parties agree that the Constitution recognizes a liberty interest in avoiding the administration of antipsychotic drugs”); Youngberg v Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 324 (1982) (“Respondent thus enjoys constitutionally protected interests in conditions of reasonable care and safety, reasonably nonrestrictive confinement conditions, and such training as may be required by these interests”).Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    See, e.g., Perlin ML: Ten years after: Evolving mental health advocacy and judicial trends. 15 Ford Urb Law J 335 (1986–87); Perlin ML: Patients’ rights, in 3 Cavenar, (ed): Psychiatry ed rev 1986 ch. 35.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael L. Perlin
    • 1
  1. 1.Federal Litigation ClinicNew York Law SchoolNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations