Seb's ABPP Study Guide questions with verified answers
Vitek v. Jones (1980) Ans✓✓ -The involuntary transfer of a prisoner to a mental
hospital requires a hearing and other minimal elements of Due Process such as
notice and the availability of counsel.
Commonwealth v Kobrin (1985) Ans✓✓ -Private patient conversations protected
through assertion of privilege
Clites v Iowa (1982) Ans✓✓ -Need informed consent for tranquilizers, neglect for
restraint and meds without monitoring
Doe v Roe (1977) Ans✓✓ -Damages awarded to plaintiff after publication of
therapy book with her private information
Jaffee v Redmond (1996) Ans✓✓ -Officer involved shooting, therapy notes
protected from compelled disclosure - privilege "sufficiently important to
outweigh probative evidence"
In re Lifschutz (1970) Ans✓✓ -Privilege is not absolute - if the litigant makes issue
of mental health then those matters specific to the mental or emotional condition
which the patient has voluntarily brought up can be compelled to be disclosed
Menendez v Superior Court (1992) Ans✓✓ -Brothers murdered parents - privilege
may be overcome by "dangerous patient exception" if therapist has reasonable
cause to believe disclosure is necessary to prevent harm
,Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) Ans✓✓ -Federal Standard for
admitting expert scientific testimony - flexible inquiry with focus on principles and
methodology.
- Been tested
- Subjected to peer review and publication
- Known or potential error rate
- Existence and maintenance of standards controlling operation
- Widespread acceptance
Frye v US (1923) Ans✓✓ -Expert opinion admissible if "generally accepted" as
reliable in scientific community.
MN switched from this to Frye-Mack in 1980, then Daubert in 16-17.
General Electric Co. v Joiner (1997) Ans✓✓ -Articulation of Daubert - Abuse of
discretion standard should guide review review to admit or exclude expert
scientific testimony
Jenkins v US (1961) Ans✓✓ -Psychologists meet the standard for expert status -
the opinion likely to aid trier in search for truth, and allowance is not based on
title but on nature and extent of their knowledge.
Kumho Tire Co. v Carmichael (1999) Ans✓✓ -Expanded Daubert application to
expert testimony from non-scientist - Daubert applies to all "specialized
knowledge" due to difficulties distinguishing between "scientific" and "technical"
,Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) Ans✓✓ -Broad aptitude tests in hiring that
disparately impact minorities must be "reasonably related" to job - Title VII of Civil
Rights Act prohibits disparate impact
Hall v. Florida (2014) Ans✓✓ -If borderline IQ (70-75), scores fall within tests
error, must look beyond scores/allow other evidence of disability. No "rigid rule"
allowed
United States v. Greer (1998) Ans✓✓ -Sentencing enhancement upheld for
feigning - determined to be willful obstruction and case tried in his absence
Bruce v. Byrne-Stevens & Assocs. Eng'rs (1989) Ans✓✓ -Expert eyewitnesses are
immune from suit to encourage "full and frank testimony" even if privately
retained
Budwin v. American Psychological Association (1994) Ans✓✓ -Quasi-judicial
immunity does not bar a private organization from disciplinary action
Deatherage v. Examining Board of Psychology (1997) Ans✓✓ -Absolute immunity
as an expert witness protects against licensing discipline
Murphy v. A.A. Mathews (1992) Ans✓✓ -Witness immunity does not bar suit if
the professional is negligent in providing the agreed upon services - immunity
does not extend to negligent pretrial litigation support services
Jenkins v. US (1961) Ans✓✓ -A psychologist is competent to state professional
opinions as an expert witness concerning nature and existence of mental disease
and defect
, Ake v. Oklahoma (1985) Ans✓✓ -14th Amend. due process clause requires
provision of indigent defendant with psychiatric assistance for insanity defense -
state must provide assistance where private interests affected, valued derived
from additional safeguards, and assistance is a minimal burden to the state.
Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996) Ans✓✓ -Clear and convincing standard is
unconstitutional - must be preponderance of the evidence
Drope v. Missouri (1975) Ans✓✓ -Added prong to Dusky - assisting Counsel in
defense. And due process violations if failure to order competency evaluation -
requests for competency now rarely refused
Dusky v. US (1960) Ans✓✓ -Present ability to consult with lawyer with reasonable
degree of rational understanding and rational as well as factual understanding of
proceedings
Estelle v. Smith (1981) Ans✓✓ -State cannot force psychiatric exam for
sentencing - violates 5th Amend. (self-incrimination) and 6th Amend. (right to
counsel). Need warning of right to silence and that statements can be used at any
stage.
Jackson v. Indiana (1972) Ans✓✓ -Violation of due process, equal protection,
cruel and unusual to indefinitely commit someone on the basis of incompetency -
limited period of confinement to the time necessary to determine if defendant
could be returned to competence in future, did not set specific time limit
Medina v. California (1992) Ans✓✓ -states can require the defendant to bear the
burden of proving their state of incompetence by a preponderance of the
Vitek v. Jones (1980) Ans✓✓ -The involuntary transfer of a prisoner to a mental
hospital requires a hearing and other minimal elements of Due Process such as
notice and the availability of counsel.
Commonwealth v Kobrin (1985) Ans✓✓ -Private patient conversations protected
through assertion of privilege
Clites v Iowa (1982) Ans✓✓ -Need informed consent for tranquilizers, neglect for
restraint and meds without monitoring
Doe v Roe (1977) Ans✓✓ -Damages awarded to plaintiff after publication of
therapy book with her private information
Jaffee v Redmond (1996) Ans✓✓ -Officer involved shooting, therapy notes
protected from compelled disclosure - privilege "sufficiently important to
outweigh probative evidence"
In re Lifschutz (1970) Ans✓✓ -Privilege is not absolute - if the litigant makes issue
of mental health then those matters specific to the mental or emotional condition
which the patient has voluntarily brought up can be compelled to be disclosed
Menendez v Superior Court (1992) Ans✓✓ -Brothers murdered parents - privilege
may be overcome by "dangerous patient exception" if therapist has reasonable
cause to believe disclosure is necessary to prevent harm
,Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) Ans✓✓ -Federal Standard for
admitting expert scientific testimony - flexible inquiry with focus on principles and
methodology.
- Been tested
- Subjected to peer review and publication
- Known or potential error rate
- Existence and maintenance of standards controlling operation
- Widespread acceptance
Frye v US (1923) Ans✓✓ -Expert opinion admissible if "generally accepted" as
reliable in scientific community.
MN switched from this to Frye-Mack in 1980, then Daubert in 16-17.
General Electric Co. v Joiner (1997) Ans✓✓ -Articulation of Daubert - Abuse of
discretion standard should guide review review to admit or exclude expert
scientific testimony
Jenkins v US (1961) Ans✓✓ -Psychologists meet the standard for expert status -
the opinion likely to aid trier in search for truth, and allowance is not based on
title but on nature and extent of their knowledge.
Kumho Tire Co. v Carmichael (1999) Ans✓✓ -Expanded Daubert application to
expert testimony from non-scientist - Daubert applies to all "specialized
knowledge" due to difficulties distinguishing between "scientific" and "technical"
,Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) Ans✓✓ -Broad aptitude tests in hiring that
disparately impact minorities must be "reasonably related" to job - Title VII of Civil
Rights Act prohibits disparate impact
Hall v. Florida (2014) Ans✓✓ -If borderline IQ (70-75), scores fall within tests
error, must look beyond scores/allow other evidence of disability. No "rigid rule"
allowed
United States v. Greer (1998) Ans✓✓ -Sentencing enhancement upheld for
feigning - determined to be willful obstruction and case tried in his absence
Bruce v. Byrne-Stevens & Assocs. Eng'rs (1989) Ans✓✓ -Expert eyewitnesses are
immune from suit to encourage "full and frank testimony" even if privately
retained
Budwin v. American Psychological Association (1994) Ans✓✓ -Quasi-judicial
immunity does not bar a private organization from disciplinary action
Deatherage v. Examining Board of Psychology (1997) Ans✓✓ -Absolute immunity
as an expert witness protects against licensing discipline
Murphy v. A.A. Mathews (1992) Ans✓✓ -Witness immunity does not bar suit if
the professional is negligent in providing the agreed upon services - immunity
does not extend to negligent pretrial litigation support services
Jenkins v. US (1961) Ans✓✓ -A psychologist is competent to state professional
opinions as an expert witness concerning nature and existence of mental disease
and defect
, Ake v. Oklahoma (1985) Ans✓✓ -14th Amend. due process clause requires
provision of indigent defendant with psychiatric assistance for insanity defense -
state must provide assistance where private interests affected, valued derived
from additional safeguards, and assistance is a minimal burden to the state.
Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996) Ans✓✓ -Clear and convincing standard is
unconstitutional - must be preponderance of the evidence
Drope v. Missouri (1975) Ans✓✓ -Added prong to Dusky - assisting Counsel in
defense. And due process violations if failure to order competency evaluation -
requests for competency now rarely refused
Dusky v. US (1960) Ans✓✓ -Present ability to consult with lawyer with reasonable
degree of rational understanding and rational as well as factual understanding of
proceedings
Estelle v. Smith (1981) Ans✓✓ -State cannot force psychiatric exam for
sentencing - violates 5th Amend. (self-incrimination) and 6th Amend. (right to
counsel). Need warning of right to silence and that statements can be used at any
stage.
Jackson v. Indiana (1972) Ans✓✓ -Violation of due process, equal protection,
cruel and unusual to indefinitely commit someone on the basis of incompetency -
limited period of confinement to the time necessary to determine if defendant
could be returned to competence in future, did not set specific time limit
Medina v. California (1992) Ans✓✓ -states can require the defendant to bear the
burden of proving their state of incompetence by a preponderance of the
