Seb's ABPP Study Guide Questions And Answers Already Graded A+
7 views 0 purchase
Module
Seb\\\'s ABPP
Institution
Seb\\\'s ABPP
Menendez v Superior Court (1992) - ️️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) - ️️Federal Standard for admitting...
Seb's ABPP Study Guide
Menendez v Superior Court (1992) - ✔️✔️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) - ✔️✔️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
Vitek v. Jones (1980) - ✔️✔️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) - ✔️✔️Private patient conversations protected through
assertion of privilege
Clites v Iowa (1982) - ✔️✔️Need informed consent for tranquilizers, neglect for
restraint and meds without monitoring
Doe v Roe (1977) - ✔️✔️Damages awarded to plaintiff after publication of therapy book
with her private information
Jaffee v Redmond (1996) - ✔️✔️Officer involved shooting, therapy notes protected
from compelled disclosure - privilege "sufficiently important to outweigh probative
evidence"
In re Lifschutz (1970) - ✔️✔️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
Frye v US (1923) - ✔️✔️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) - ✔️✔️Articulation of Daubert - Abuse of discretion
standard should guide review review to admit or exclude expert scientific testimony
Jenkins v US (1961) - ✔️✔️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) - ✔️✔️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) - ✔️✔️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) - ✔️✔️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) - ✔️✔️Sentencing enhancement upheld for feigning -
determined to be willful obstruction and case tried in his absence
Bruce v. Byrne-Stevens & Assocs. Eng'rs (1989) - ✔️✔️Expert eyewitnesses are
immune from suit to encourage "full and frank testimony" even if privately retained
Budwin v. American Psychological Association (1994) - ✔️✔️Quasi-judicial immunity
does not bar a private organization from disciplinary action
Deatherage v. Examining Board of Psychology (1997) - ✔️✔️Absolute immunity as an
expert witness protects against licensing discipline
Murphy v. A.A. Mathews (1992) - ✔️✔️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) - ✔️✔️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) - ✔️✔️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) - ✔️✔️Clear and convincing standard is unconstitutional -
must be preponderance of the evidence
, Drope v. Missouri (1975) - ✔️✔️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) - ✔️✔️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) - ✔️✔️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.
Medina v. California (1992) - ✔️✔️states can require the defendant to bear the burden
of proving their state of incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence.
Presumption of competence also does not violate due process, and "no settled view on
where the burden should lie."
Pate v. Robinson (1966) - ✔️✔️If competency is in doubt and evidence raises sufficient
doubt, hearing must take place. Defendant cannot waive right to hearing, since waivers
must be knowing and intelligent
Riggins v. Nevada (1992) - ✔️✔️Forced administration of anti-psychotic medication
violates 6th and 14th Amends. unless state can show need and medical
appropriateness for safety with no lesser alternative.
Seiling v. Eyman (1973) - ✔️✔️Reasoned choice standard - pleading guilty requires a
higher standard of competence than CST because it involves giving up constitutional
rights.
Sell v. US (2003) - ✔️✔️Stringent limits on involuntary medication for purposes of
restoration:
- important government issue at stake
- substantial probability medication will restore without undue side effects
- necessary for restoration with no lesser alternatives that could produce the same
result
US v. Duhon (2000) - ✔️✔️Defendant with MR found incompetent then certified as
competent after 8 week restoration at hospital. Repetition of factual information not
relevant for competency. MR rendered defendant permanently disabled without
substantial risk, no further hospitalization appropriate
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller PatrickKaylian. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £6.52. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
