LANDMARK CASES B

Question 1

Barefoot v. Estelle (SCOTUS 1983) FOTC / Legal Hx

Answer 1

• Barefoot convicted capital murder of LEO (TX)
• @ Sentencing, Grigson & another psychiatrist testified about probability of committing future acts of violence, “continuing threat to society”
• But NOT based on examination of Barefoot, just hypothetical Qs assuming all facts against defendant proved
• Death penalty
• Unsuccessful appeals to TX SC & SCOTUS, then habeas corpus in Fed Courts

Question 2

Barefoot v. Estelle (SCOTUS 1983) H (2) & R (3)

Answer 2

H:
- Rejected Barefoot’s contention and APA amicus brief that psychiatrists couldn’t predict violence enough to testify regarding
- Also said no error in hypothetical Qs
R:
- Prediction about future behavior allowed by layperson, so why not psychs?
- Also psych predictions of future behavior common, so disallowing would mess everything up
- Hypothetical Qs acceptable, that experts hadn’t examined went to weight of testimony, not admissibility

Question 3

Barefoot v. Estelle (SCOTUS 1983) Dissent (3)

Answer 3

• Greater reliability necessary when life at stake
• Scientific consensus is that psych predictions of violence wrong more often than right
• Makes sense to exclude psychs and allow lay bc psych predictions appear to come from trained MH personnel with special expertise

Question 4

Dr. James Grigson

Answer 4

Dr. Death - testimony placed over 100 defs on death row. Censured by APA.

Question 5

Baxstrom v. Herold (SCOTUS 1960) FOTC / Issue

Answer 5

• Baxstrom served sentence in NY prison for assault
• During sentence, xferred Dannemora State Hospital as “insane”
• At completion, certified needing psych care, still held @ Dannemora
• No atty representation/independent psych eval
• Surrogate no problems w/ xfer to civil hospital, but on DMH had authority.
• State court dismissed Baxstrom’s habeas corpus/request for xfer to civil hospital
• Appealed SCOTUS
  ISSUE: What commitment procedures are required for prisoner at expiration of sentence to keep him in max security psychiatric hospital?

Question 6

Baxstrom v. Herold (SCOTUS 1960) H & R (2)

Answer 6

H: Reversed and remanded. Baxstrom had been denied equal protection.
R:
- Denied equal protection but only those at end of penal term not granted review of need for hospitalization by jury trial.
- Also denied equal protection bc held in max security w/o judicial hearing on dangerousness, as all others were

Question 7

Operation Baxstrom (what it was and finding)

Answer 7

Following Baxstrom, substantial emptying of hospital for “criminally insane,” which led to study on recidivism of dangerous conduct. Showed marked overprediction of violence by psychiatrists

Question 8

Board of Education v. Rowley (SCOTUS 1982) FOTC

Answer 8

• Rowley deaf student in NYC, good lip reader
• Placed in regular class, but with IEP, hearing aid, instruction w/ deaf tutor, and speech therapist weekly
• Parents also insisted ASL interpreter in class, denied
• Sued in Distr Co denial of “free appropriate public education” by the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975)
• Distr Co found performed better than avg, advanced easily grade-to-grade, but not at full potential as would w/o handicap
• Distr Co ruled wasn’t receiving free appropriate public education bc not opportunity to achieve full potential commensure w/ other children
• COA confirmed
• Appeals to SCOTUS

Question 9

Board of Education v. Rowley (SCOTUS 1982) H & R(2)

Answer 9

H: EfAHC Act “free appropriate education” satisfied when state provides personalized instruction so that child benefits educationally
R:
- Act was for access, does not say that state has to maximize potential of each handicapped child commensurate w/ opportunity provided to nonhandicapped.
- If state has complied with Act’s statutory procedures, and IEP reasonably calculated to allow educational benefits, then compliance w/ Act and courts can require no more

Question 10

Board of Education v. Rowley (SCOTUS 1982) Quote

Answer 10

“The children’s educations are not left w/o protection bc parents will not lack ardor in seeking to ensure that they receive all of the entitled benefits.”

Question 11

Board of Education v. Rowley (SCOTUS 1982) Dissent

Answer 11

Basically Rowley understood < 50% in class, “hardly an equal opportunity to learn”

Question 12

Bragdon v. Abbott (SCOTUS 1998) FOTC & Issue (2)

Answer 12

• Abbott informed dentist HIV+
• Discovered cavity, informed Abbott of policy not filling cavities HIV+ in office, would need to be hospital, she would have to cover
• Sued under ADA alleging discrimination on basis of disability
• ADA 302 says can’t be discriminated on basis of disability from place of public accommodation (which includes HCPs)
• Also says don’t have to provide if individual poses direct threat to self/safety of others
• Distr Co granted summary judgment to Abbott
• COA affirmed, saying HIV was disability even if not sx, and treating wouldn’t have posed direct threat
• Appeal to SCOTUS
  ISSUE:
  1. Whether non-symptomatic HIV is disability under ADA
  2. Whether COA cited sufficient material to determine as matter of law that Abbott’s HIV posed no direct threat

Question 13

Bragdon v. Abbott (SCOTUS 1998) H (2/3)

Answer 13

H:
- Asx HIV is disability under ADA
- COA didn’t cite sufficient material to determine under law that HIV posed no direct threat
- Remanded for full exploration of direct threat issue

Question 14

Bragdon v. Abbott (SCOTUS 1998) Disability under ADA R (2)

Answer 14

Disability Under ADA:
- Physical/mental impairment includes any physiologic d/o that affects heme/lymph sx, which includes asx HIV
- Limits major life activity of bearing children, bc risks infecting male partner and child

Question 15

Bragdon v. Abbott (SCOTUS 1998) Direct Threat R (3)

Answer 15

ADA defines direct threat as “significant risk to health/safety others that cannot be eliminated by modification of policies, procedures, etc”
- Didn’t cite sufficient material that wasn’t direct threat. Significant risk determined by HCP based on medical/objective evidence
- COA depended on some CDC/ADA (dental) guidelines that recommended some universal precautions without risk assessments, and ethical statements, but w/ really no scientific backing

Question 16

Bragdon v. Abbott (SCOTUS 1998) Final Outcome

Answer 16

On remand, Distr Co found summary judgment for plaintiff. Risk of infection insignificant and plaintiff not “direct threat.”

Question 17

ADA “Direct Threat” Relevant to MI

Answer 17

When employee safe to return to work

Question 18

Brown v. Plata (SCOTUS 2011) FOTC

Answer 18

• 2 class action lawsuits saying CA prison system violated 8th A due to deprivation of adequate healthcare (Coleman v. Brown, then Brown v. Plata)
• State conceded, stipulated to remedial injunction.
• CA system eventually placed into receivership bc state unable to fix system
• Receiver said couldn’t rectify w/o reducing pop
• Coleman and Brown plaintiffs moved to have 3-judge panel order release of pop
• PRLA allows this if CACE crowding is primary reason of rights violation, and no other solution will rectify
• 3-judge ordered reduction of 137.5% of prison pop w/in 2 years
• CA appealed based on time and ruling that overcrowding was primary cause

Question 19

Brown v. Plata (SCOTUS 2011) H (1) & R (2)

Answer 19

H: Court-mandated pop limit necessary to prevent 8th A violations and authorized by PRLA
R:
- Cited multiple reasons provided for violation (including inadequate tx, facilities, staffing), but all attributable to overcrowding as primary cause, and no other measures would likely remedy
- Dismissed state’s claim not allowed to present updated information

Question 20

Brown v. Plata (SCOTUS 2011) Scalia Quote and 3 Dissent Points

Answer 20

Called it “most radical injunction” by SCOTUS in hx
1. Individual claims of unconst tx did not extend to all inmates
2. Most inmates that would benefit from this decision not part of Coleman or Plata (2 class-action suit groups) class
3. Also 3-judge panel had exceeded authority and not used deliberate indifference standard