| 词条 | Frendak v. United States |
| 释义 |
|name = Frendak v. United States |court = District of Columbia Court of Appeals |image = |imagesize = |imagelink = |imagealt = |caption = |full name = Paula J. Frendak v. United States |date decided = {{start date|1979|10|24|df=}} |citations = 408 A.2d 364 (D.C. 1979) |ECLI = |transcripts = |judges = John W. Kern III, George R. Gallagher, John M. Ferren |number of judges = 3 |decision by = Ferren |concurring = Gallagher |dissenting = |concur/dissent = |prior actions = |appealed from = |appealed to = |subsequent actions = |related actions = |opinions = |keywords = {{hlist | Insanity defense|Competency evaluation}} |italic title = yes }}Frendak v. United States, 408 A.2d 364 (D.C. 1979) is a landmark case in which District of Columbia Court of Appeals decided that a judge could not impose an insanity defense over the defendant's objections.[1] CircumstancesPaula Frendak shot a coworker. After four competency hearings, the defendant was adjudicated competent, although in the opinion of several experts she was likely insane when she committed the crime. However, Frendak refused to use the insanity defense as she felt a hospital was worse than any prison. She attempted suicide, went on hunger strikes and refused medication to underscore her protests.[2] However, she was forced by the court to plead insanity. Thus, in this case a competent defendant was not allowed to reject the use of the insanity defense.[3] DecisionOn appeal the decision was reversed. The judge may not impose the insanity defense upon an unwilling defendant if an intelligent defendant voluntarily wishes to forgo the defense.[3] The court said that a defendant may feel hospital is worse than prison, that the term of incarceration may be longer, that the stigma and legal consequences of a criminal or an insanity defenses are different.[4] Using the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in North Carolina v. Alford and Faretta v. California, the court concluded that {{quote|... respect for a defendant's freedom as a person mandates that he or she be permitted to make fundamental decisions about the course of the proceedings.[5]}}The court listed several disadvantages to choosing the insanity defense, including:[5]
The court therefore limited any further competence inquiry to an evaluation of the defendant's specific competency to waive the insanity defense.[5] SignificanceThis decision examines the quality of the defendant's decision. If the defendant appears to be intelligently and voluntarily waiving the insanity defense, the trial court should not deny this. However, the trial court should look into whether the defendant has been properly informed of the effects of their decision as well as the alternatives available to them. Thus the nature of such an evaluation would be similar to a competency to stand trial evaluation.[6] The Frendak rationale, that a judge may not impose a sanity defense over the objections of the defendant, has been used mostly in federal cases. Some states have endorsed less elaborate procedures. For example, if a judge rules that the waiver of the insanity defense is not voluntary and informed, yet nonetheless the defense is imposed over the defendant's objections, then a separate counsel must be appointed to argue issues pertaining to insanity issues, while the defendant's counsel presents the arguments the defendant desires.[2] However, as of 2002, seventeen jurisdictions permitted an insanity defense to be entered over the objections of the defendant. Thus these jurisdictions are, in effect, saying that a defendant who has been found competent to stand trial is not competent to rationally select his trial plea. Therefore a separate competency to refuse the insanity defense would have to be held that is similar to an evaluation of the defendant's mental state at the time of the offense.[7] Realistically, because of the Supreme Court's holding in Godinez v. Moran, it is most likely that the court would hold that if a defendant is competent to stand trial, then he is also competent to waive the insanity defense, as the two competencies are equivalent.[5] Godinez v. Moran was modified and refined by the Supreme Court decision in Indiana v. Edwards in 2008. See also
Footnotes1. ^{{cite web|author=|year=|month=|url=http://www.lawandpsychiatry.com/html/landmark.html|title=Landmark Cases|publisher=Forensic Psychiatry Law and Medicine, Psychiatry and Law|pages=|isbn=|accessdate=2008-01-01|deadurl=yes|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080110114829/http://www.lawandpsychiatry.com/html/landmark.html|archivedate=2008-01-10|df=}} {{Alford plea}}2. ^1 {{cite book | first=David L. | last= Shapiro | year= 1991 | title= Forensic Psychological Assessment: An Integrative Approach | edition= | publisher=Simon & Schuster | location=Needham Heights, MA | pages= 105–107 | isbn= 0-205-12521-2}} 3. ^{{cite book|author=Irving B. Weiner|year=2003|month=|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jk8-b9AwmJgC&pg=PA363&lpg=PA363&dq=frendak+v+united+states|title=Handbook of Psychology|publisher=Wiley|pages=363|isbn=978-0-471-17669-5|accessdate=2008-01-01}} 4. ^1 {{cite web|author=|year=|month=|url=http://bama.ua.edu/~jhooper/frendak.html|title=Landmark cases - Frendak v. U.S.|publisher=Psychiatry and the Law|pages=|isbn=|accessdate=2008-01-01}} 5. ^1 2 3 {{cite book| first=Gary| last=Melton | year= 1997| title= Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers| edition= 2nd| publisher=The Guilford Press| location=New York| pages=166–167| isbn= 1-57230-236-4}} 6. ^{{cite web|author=Anna Saxman, Esq.|year=|month=|url=https://www.vtbar.org/Images/Journal/journalarticles/summer%202002/Saxman.pdf|format=PDF|title=State v. Bean - The Insanity Defense and the Right to Proceed Pro Se|publisher=|pages=|isbn=|accessdate=2008-01-01}} 7. ^{{cite journal|author=Miller RD |title=Hendricks v. People: forcing the insanity defense on an unwilling defendant |journal=J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=295–7 |year=2002 |pmid=12108569 |doi= |url=http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=12108569}} 5 : Mental health law in the United States|1979 in United States case law|Self-representation case law|Insanity|United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit cases |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。