Understanding the Legal Test
Difference Between Proving Mental Illness In Criminal & Civil Court
The standard of proof in civil court is a preponderance of the evidence (51 percent of the evidence is enough). This is a lower standard than necessary to prove mental illness in criminal court. The standard of proof in criminal court to determine if a defendant was insane at the time of the commission of the offense is beyond a reasonable doubt (98 percent of the evidence is enough). For criminal cases, this means that the jury must believe that the defendant was insane ("unable to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his acts") when he or she committed a crime . To qualify for an insanity defense, it must be shown that the crime that was charged had a relationship to the defendant’s mental illness.
There are four civil standards for determining if someone has a severe mental illness. These are civil commitment, guardianship, advance directives and medical decision-making. These standards relate to both public and private institutions. The criteria for civil commitment is the most common standard because it typically comes up in mental health courts. This standard requires that the defendant be a danger to himself or herself or to others, and thus become a ward of the state. In this case, the state takes over custody of the person’s medical care and makes all decisions.
Types of Mental Illness Impacting Cases
Several mental illnesses are frequently presented during court cases. Schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are among them. Schizophrenia is a chronic and severe mental disorder that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves. Although its cause is not known, it is characterized by distortions in thinking and perception known as psychosis. People with schizophrenia may have difficulties managing themselves and their lives. They may experience hallucinations, delusions, and disorganized thinking. If proven, the impact of this mental illness on a defendant can be serious. Schizophrenia can lead to a diminished capacity to carry out some of the essential requirements of life. It can include the inability to realize many potential hazards of daily living due to hallucinations and delusions that exist in those with this mental illness.
Major depressive disorder may be encountered in both plaintiffs and defendants. Over time, the criteria for the diagnosis have changed. Today, people must have been experiencing five of the following symptoms during the same two-week period: the symptoms must be severe enough to cause significant distress or impairment of daily activities. People who have major depressive episodes experience the greater part of the day and almost every day one or both of these two symptoms: One major limitation of this diagnosis is that it is based solely on self-report, and that assumption may not always reflect reality. In extreme situations, a small number of patients have committed murder when they experienced breaks in reality. Commonly, people who experience major depressive episodes may experience suicidal thoughts. Many people with major depression can fully recover with treatment to treat the depression which is why the testimony in a lawsuit involving someone with this illness can be significant to a jury and judges.
Bipolar disorder is an illness that is characterized by extreme mood swings. People with the illness may experience severe high and lows in their mood. The high is called mania; the low is called hypomania. These episodes can last for months, but most people with bipolar disorder will have recovered from both states within the year, meaning their symptoms will have mostly disappeared. The longest episodes may last three of the years of their lives. Although it is considered a lifelong illness, having this mental illness does not mean that the person will not be able to distinguish his or her actions from right and wrong. Bipolar disorder is not necessarily a significant factor in cases where a juror would conclude that a plaintiff was not responsible for his or her actions.
PTSD is a mental health condition that is characterized by exposure to an event that involves death, actual or threatened serious injury, or actual or threatened sexual violence. People with PTSD will respond to the event with fear, helplessness, or horror. An example of these events might be personal assault, automobile accident, war experience, rape, kidnapping, torture, sudden unexpected death of a loved one, or a disaster. Usually, symptoms develop shortly after the event(s) or they can also arise long after. The patient may feel fear or helplessness due to remembering thoughts and images of the trauma. Other symptoms can include re-experiencing flashbacks, avoidance behavior, and increased physical and mental arousal.
Collecting Medical Records
The gathering of medical evidence is a critical component in establishing the presence of mental illness in a court of law. Essentially, these types of evidence aim to demonstrate that a person’s mental condition is dangerous and/or debilitating enough to warrant commitment.
First and foremost, a psychiatric evaluation is vital to the process. This process typically consists of checking the client for specific risk factors and collecting basic personal information, as well as opening with an interview of the person. One of the primary things the psychiatric evaluation should do is highlight the degree to which the person has suffered from both physical and emotional trauma to their brain and body, and whether or not their mental condition apparently has an impact on their functional ability.
Furthermore, medical records can come into play should the psychiatric evaluation deem it necessary. These medical records can help your lawyer determine the extent of your mental illness – information that will be essential to validating your claim in court.
It’s important to keep in mind the purpose of medical evidence. In a case like this, the medical evidence is largely used to determine whether you are "dangerous" to yourself or others, and whether or not you would present a harm to yourself or others if released from a care facility.
Expert Witnesses and Their Role
The role of the expert witness can be critical to the outcome of a legal proceeding. Hired by attorneys for specific cases, expert witnesses, are individuals with specialized knowledge of a certain subject matter (such as psychology). In cases relating to mental illness, an expert psychological witness can help a jury better understand the complexities surrounding a client’s mental status and how it relates to the case at hand.
A qualified expert witness will often be hired to provide an independent view of the situation based on empirical data and reported psychological research. This is the process where an expert will be hired specifically to evaluate the individual at question. During the process, they will talk with the individual regarding their experiences and their problematic behavior, in order to assess the individual’s mental state and whether or not mental illness was present.
It can be important to consider that if improperly used, the defense can argue that the expert lacks credibility and that the faulty evidence should be dismissed from the record. The purpose of the psychological expert witness is to discover, through clinical analysis, the mental health of the individual in question and how this analysis intersects with the situation at hand. Generally, the process will take at least two closure interviews and involve various psychological tests. Once these personal inquiries are complete, these results are interpreted by the expert to determine if certain behaviors could have been caused by a mental illness.
While this process can seem intimidating and unwieldy, both attorneys and expert witnesses work around these potential issues. For example, the expert (once qualified) will provide a written report which will provide their clinical findings and observations. This can serve as useful documentation to further clarify the opinion at trial.
Hurdles in Establishing Mental Illness
In order to prove mental illness in court, one of the most common challenges that must be overcome is the stigma associated with mental illness itself. For many people, the very concept of mental illness can be jarring. When presented with a case where someone is diagnosed with a mental illness, judges may have preconceived notions about mental health. For example, people living with mental illnesses are often wrongly classified as "crazy," an attitude that can come into play in a court case. That stigma can be a major hurdle for people with mental illness who seek justice in court. That is why it is so important to explore all options when pursuing a mental illness lawsuit—this includes finding the proper venue for such a case.
Another challenge to prove mental illness in court is the need for credibility in evidence. To prove a mental illness case , the plaintiff will need to prove their condition through psychological evaluations and vouch for its credibility. This is not always easy to do. Without the right legal representation, many plaintiffs simply do not have enough medical and psychological evidence to prove their case in court. Further, many plaintiffs do not understand that certain types of evidence should and should not be brought to court. Sometimes, evidence is inadmissible simply because the plaintiff did not know how or when to submit it to the judge.
In addition to stigma and credibility issues, it can be difficult to find a legal representative who is knowledgeable about mental illness. Mental illnesses are complex in nature, and some lawyers may not have an understanding of the various conditions related to mental illness. This is why plaintiffs must carefully vet potential representation before hiring them. It’s often beneficial to consult representation who has experience with mental illness cases specifically.
Case Law and Judicial Precedents
Court cases have sculpted the trajectory of how mental illness can be proved in court. For example, in the case of Jackson v. Indiana, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a state may not indefinitely commit an incompetent defendant to a mental institution when there is no "substantial probability" that he will attain competency for trial. This principle is crucial: if a defendant is deemed incompetent to stand trial, it is the very responsibility of the courts to determine whether or not treatment can make him competent again.
The precedent laid out in Estelle v. Smith has also been used to further entrench how insanity cases can be proved in court. The broader implications of this, as pointed out by Amy Coney Barrett in "Originalism and Stare Decisis," are even more impactful. The Supreme Court had ruled in an earlier case (Ford v. Wainwright) that execution of the insane was unconstitutional. In Estelle, the defendant had been found insane and later voluntarily told a psychiatrist that he would have to be treated differently, as his "mental state is what’s driving [him] to commit crimes." The latter statement should not be used against him when determining his competency of trial, according to the Court, and to do otherwise, in a criminal case, violates the due process rights of the defendant.
Since both of these court rulings paved the way for mental illness to be assessed in court, a large number of cases have relied on them as guidelines. Very recently, in 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled on Parham v. Jimmie Doe. In order to be committed, the Court had decided the individual needed to have a condition that entitled the state to intervene. However, Parham created an exception for "dangerousness." While it was not clear whether the individual before the court was dangerous or had a mental illness, the Supreme Court has ruled that if either of those prerequisites had been proven true, the state had the right to intervene.
From a legal perspective, then, proving mental illness can be a complex matter made even more complicated by the complexities of recent rulings.
Counting the Cost on Sentencing and Verdicts
"For mental illness to be taken into serious account during trial, the medical diagnosis must not only state the defendant had a condition, but it must also explain how the diagnosis affected the mental state before and after the crime was committed"
In some cases, the revelation of a mental illness can affect the verdict handed out. In other cases, the mental illness may be argued to have directly contributed to the crime, which could mean an acquittal.
For example, if a defendant were to be sentenced for a violent act, based on mental illness, he or she may serve time at a mental health facility rather than in a prison. In other cases, criminal charges could be dropped if the conviction is impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, because the defendant was incapable of understanding the wrongdoing.
In terms of possible verdicts, consider the example of a defendant who was clinically depressed at the time of his crime. His depression could negatively impact the outcome, potentially meaning he will be incapable of being rehabilitated and consequently considered to be very dangerous in the future.
Studies show that juries and judges have a tendency to be sympathetic toward defendants with mental illness, especially those who have been diagnosed with less severe forms of mental illness, such as depression or anxiety disorders. It’s important to understand that mental illness requires the evidence of a medical professional in order for it to be used as a defense, and it must be rooted in respect for science and the legal system as a whole.
It’s advised that if you’re going to present evidence of mental illness as part of a defense, you should do so early on in the case, as there are concerns among law enforcement about criminals being held in expert care environments.
Overall, the legal standards for evidence regarding mental illness helps to ensure that the people who genuinely meet the criteria for mental health conditions aren’t treated unfairly by the justice system.
Ultimately, mental illness has a significant impact on the conviction, sentencing and outcome of a trial.
Finding and Using Counsel
Legal representation and advocacy for mental illness cases are areas where a good understanding of Illinois criminal law and procedure can make a key difference for defendants. While many lawyers do not view such cases as appealing to their skills, particularly in sex offense categories, they overlook the potential for a brilliant resolution to what superficially would seem like an impossible situation.
The role of legal counsel in mental illness cases should not be underestimated. Not only does an attorney provide guidance to the client about the stages of proceedings and the possible consequences of a finding of mental illness most efficiently, but they also effectively navigate the obstacles created for them by the lack of knowledge about resolving the prevailing issues from the judge and jury. A convicted defendant with a mental illness has more options for post-conviction relief than a defendant without mental illness. Understanding those options may increase the chance of a successful verdict for the defendant.
Advocacy of the mentally ill can be exercised with a better intent than a mere legal defense for the purpose of money earned and reputation gained . Those attorneys who have been through the mental illness process with a defendant have likely dealt with some very extreme characteristics of mental illness: paranoid delusions, bouts of rage, suicide attempts and so forth. These experiences allow the attorney to understand how the legal system interacts with the defendant.
The standards for competency work hand in hand with issues of mental illness. If a defendant can be evaluated as competent, there is a greater chance he or she could prevail overall. Mental illness may not result in incompetency. On the other hand, incompetence could be the best way for a defendant to escape a conviction. Attorneys need to know where to draw the line for those with a mental illness.
As a practical matter, good legal representation can also open additional paths to resolution at the preliminary stages of a case. For example, early intervention for pre-trial diversion programs or other alternatives to prosecution may help those whose charges have arisen out of an episode related to mental illness which likely will not occur again after medication or other treatment has been made available.
Leave a Reply