Competency and the Death Penalty

Transcription

1 LANDMARK MEDICAL-LEGAL CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Competency and the Death Penalty DAVID N. WECHT JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 2017 ACLM ANNUAL MEETING BUCK V. BELL 274 U.S. 200 (1927) Upholding forced sterilization of unfit, including intellectually disabled Holmes: Three generations of imbeciles are enough Brandeis joins. 8-1 decision (sole dissent : Butler) Eugenics: popular in early twentieth century; seen as improving humanity by removing defectives from gene pool; fell out of favor after Nazi atrocities Never explicitly overruled O CONNOR V. DONALDSON DUSKY V. UNITED STATES 362 U.S. 402 (1960) Criminal defendant has right to pre-trial competency evaluation FORD V. WAINWRIGHT 422 U.S. 563 (1975) 477 U.S. 399 (1986) States may not involuntarily commit persons who Criminal convict has right to pre-execution are not danger to themselves or others and who are capable of living by themselves or with aid of responsible family members or friends competency evaluation Execution of the insane is 1

2 3/10/17 GODINEZ V. MORAN ATKINS V. VIRGINIA 509 U.S. 389 (1993) Criminal defendant who is competent to stand trial is competent to plead guilty or waive right to legal counsel 536 U.S. 304 (2002) Execution of persons with intellectual disabilities (then referred to as mentally retarded ) is However, states may define who is intellectually disabled IQ of murder convict was 59 BAZE V. REES 553 U.S. 35 (2008) drug cocktails widely used in lethal injection are constitutional first drug in cocktail must render inmate unconscious an isolated mishap alone does not violate the Eighth Amendment Scientific Evidence and Expert Testimony DIAMOND V. CHAKRABARTY Scientific Evidence/Expert Testimony 447 U.S. 303 (1980) Genetically modified, living man-made microorganisms may be patented, because they qualify as manufacture or composition of matter under Patent Act of decision; dissent argued that Congress did not intend patentability for living organisms implications/concerns: transgenic animal patents, floodgates, etc. DAUBERT V. MERRILL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS Scientific Evidence/Expert Testimony 509 U.S. 579 (1993) federal courts required to assess validity and relevance of scientific evidence judges as gatekeepers difference from Frye test 2

3 GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT Reproductive Rights Abortion/Birth Control 381 U.S. 479 (1965) state law outlawing use of contraception by married couples all Americans enjoy right to privacy, protected by the U.S. Constitution EISENSTADT V. BAIRD Abortion/Birth Control 405 U.S. 438 (1972) extending protections of Griswold to unmarried couples PLANNED PARENTHOOD V. CASEY ROE V. WADE Abortion/Birth Control 410 U.S. 113 (1973) Laws restricting a woman s right to abortion prior to viability are most first trimester restrictions prohibited only health-related restrictions allowed during second trimester most third trimester restrictions permitted WHOLE WOMAN S HEALTH V. HELLERSTEDT Abortion/Birth Control Abortion/Birth Control 505 U.S. 833 (1992) 579 U.S. (2016) upholding Roe s striking down as constitutional protection of pre-viability abortion, but allowing several first semester restrictions rejecting Roe s rigid trimester paradigm and establishing undue burden inquiry a state law whose admitting privileges and surgical-center requirements imposed substantial obstacles to women seeking previability abortion and which placed undue burden on abortion access 3

4 VERNONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT 47J V. ACTON Drugs Drugs 515 U.S. 646 (1995) Schools may impose random drug tests on students participating in school-sponsored athletics BOARD OF EDUCATION V. EARLS GONZALES V. RAICH Drugs Drugs 536 U.S. 822 (2002) 545 U.S. 1 (2005) School districts do not violate Fourth Amendment by United States Congress may ban marijuana use even implementing coercive drug tests on students participating in extracurricular activities if state has approved its use for medicinal purposes CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPT. OF HEALTH End of Life Rights End of Life/Right to Die 497 U.S. 261 (1990) Where family requests termination of life-sustaining treatment for relative in persistent vegetative condition, state may constitutionally deny request if there is no evidence of clear advance directive by patient 4

5 WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG VACCO V. QUILL End of Life/Right to Die End of Life/Right to Die 521 U.S. 702 (1997) 521 U.S. 793 (1997) state prohibition on assisted suicide constitutional state prohibition on assisted suicide did not violate Equal Protection Clause no constitutional guarantee of right to die JACK KEVORKIAN, M.D. End of Life/Right to Die Multiple proceedings in Michigan courts TERRI SCHIAVO End of Life/Right to Die Multiple Courts dispute between husband and Pathologist and Euthanasia activist; championed right to die via physicianassisted suicide Convicted in 1999 of second-degree murder in voluntary euthanasia case; paroled 2007; died 2011 (age 83) parents of woman in irreversible persistent vegetative state incident to cardiac arrest and resulting massive brain damage dispute concerned removal of feeding tube multiple state and federal court proceedings, including four denials of certiorari by U.S. Supreme Court involvement of President George W. Bush and others feeding tube ultimately disconnected; patient died GONZALES V. OREGON End of Life/Right to Die 546 U.S. 243 (2006) Controlled Substances Act did not prohibit physicians from prescribing drugs needed to perform assisted suicides under state law 5