Law Commons^™

Taking Corrigibility Seriously, Dora Klein

Faculty Articles

This article argues that the Supreme Court's creation of a category of "irreparably corrupt" juveniles is not only an epistemological mistake but also a tactical mistake which has undermined the Court's express desire that only in the "rarest" of cases will juveniles be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

One Step Backward: The Ninth Circuit's Unfortunate Rule 404(B) Decision In United States V. Lague, Dora Klein

Faculty Articles

The federal courts' current approach to character evidence is widely recognized as problematic. Although Rule 404(b)(1) categorically prohibits the use of character evidence, Rule 404(b)(2) presents a list of examples of permitted purposes that has tempted courts to view the admission of other-acts evidence as proper so long as the evidence is merely relevant to a non-character purpose. Additionally, courts have misconstrued the inclusive structure of Rule 404(b) as creating a presumption

in favor of admissibility. Recent efforts to correct this mistakenly permissive view include decisions by several of the federal circuit courts of appeals recognizing that Rule 404(b) requires …

“Rule Of Inclusion" Confusion, Dora Klein

Faculty Articles

Some rules of evidence are complex. The federal rules governing the admissibility of hearsay statements,' for example, include at least forty different provisions. Numerous judges and scholars have commented on the complexity of the hearsay rules. Not all rules of evidence are complex, however. For example, the federal rules governing the admissibility of character evidence are relatively straightforward: evidence that is offered for the purpose of proving character is inadmissible, subject to a few well-defined exceptions. Despite this relative straightforwardness, many of the federal circuit courts of appeals have overlaid the rules regarding character evidence particularly Rule 404(b)--with unnecessary interpretive …

The (Mis)Application Of Rule 404(B) Heuristics, Dora W. Klein

Faculty Articles

In all of the federal circuit courts of appeals, application of Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence has been distorted by judicially-created "tests" that, while intended to assist trial courts in properly admitting or excluding evidence, do not actually test for the kind of evidence prohibited by this rule. Rule 404(b) prohibits evidence of "crimes, wrongs, or other acts" if the purpose for admitting the evidence is to prove action in accordance with a character trait. This evidence is commonly referred to as "propensity" evidence, or "once a drug dealer, always a drug dealer" evidence.

This Article examines …

Exemplary And Exceptional Confusion Under The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Dora W. Klein

Faculty Articles

This Article proposes that the final provisions of Rule 407 and 411, which provide a list of examples of permitted purposes for which a court may admit evidence, are asking for trouble--specifically, the trouble that courts will interpret the list not as examples, but as a specially enumerated, exhaustive list of exceptions.

Is Felony Murder The New Depraved Heart Murder: Considering The Appropriate Punishment For Drunken Drivers Who Kill, Dora W. Klein

Faculty Articles

In recognition of the increasing use of felony-murder statutes to prosecute drunken drivers who kill, this Article considers various criticisms and defenses of the felony-murder rule as they apply specifically to felony DWI cases. Part II of this Article discusses several recent precedent setting cases in which drunken drivers who killed were prosecuted under felony murder statutes. Part III explores whether such prosecutions are proper, given the existence of special narrower vehicular manslaughter provisions that a legislature might have intended to be the sole means of prosecuting drunk drivers who kill. Part IV discusses three particular limiting doctrines-merger, inherent dangerousness, …

The Dignity Of The Human Person: Catholic Social Teaching And The Practice Of Criminal Punishment, Dora W. Klein

Faculty Articles

The moral foundation that supports the Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty is wide and deep. This Article proposes that despite the oft-repeated maxim that "death is different," the same foundation that supports efforts to abolish the death penalty can also support those who seek to achieve other reforms in the practice of criminal punishment.

The Costs Of Delay: Incompetent Criminal Defendants, Involuntary Antipsychotic Medications, And The Question Of Who Decides, Dora W. Klein

Faculty Articles

Whether an incompetent pretrial detainee is entitled to a judicial hearing before he may be administered involuntary antipsychotic medication is a matter of contention. The question of the constitutionality, with regard to the Due Process clause, of involuntary medication to diminish a detainee’s dangerousness is one that arises at the intersection of two United States Supreme Court cases, Washington v. Harper and Sell v. United States.

In Harper, the Court ruled that a convicted prisoner is not entitled to a judicial hearing before he may be administered involuntary antipsychotic medications when the medications are necessary to diminish the prisoner’s dangerousness …

When Coercion Lacks Care: Competency To Make Medical Treatment Decisions And Parens Patriae Civil Commitments, Dora W. Klein

Faculty Articles

The subject of this Article is people who have been civilly committed under a state’s parens patriae authority to care for those who are unable to care for themselves. These are people who, because of a mental illness, are a danger to themselves. Even after they have been determined to be so disabled by their mental illness that they cannot care for themselves, many are nonetheless found to be competent to refuse medical treatment. Competency to make medical treatment decisions generally requires only a capacity to understand a proposed treatment, not an actual or rational understanding of that treatment. This …

The Mentally Disordered Criminal Defendant At The Supreme Court: A Decade In Review, Dora W. Klein

Faculty Articles

In the past decade, at least eight cases involving issues at the intersection of criminal law and clinical psychology have reached the United States Supreme Court. Of particular interest are those cases which concern three general topics: the culpability of juvenile offenders; mental states and the criminal process, including the presentation of mental disorder evidence, competency to stand trial, and competency to be executed; and the preventive detention of convicted sex offenders.

Of these eight cases, two cases cases adopted categorical exclusions from certain kinds of punishment, three involved questions about mental states (and in two of these the Court …

Rehabilitating Mental Disorder Evidence After Clark C. Arizona: Of Burdens, Presumptions, And The Rights To Raise Reasonable Doubt, Dora W. Klein

Faculty Articles

The right not to be found guilty of a crime absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a powerful right. It can be undermined, however, by rules that at first seem to have little to do with reasonable doubt or with burdens of proof.

In the recent case of Clark v. Arizona, the Supreme Court considered whether states may enact rules that categorically prohibit criminal defendants from offering mental disorder evidence for the purpose of raising reasonable doubt regarding the mens rea element of a charged offense. In Arizona law, mental disorder evidence is inadmissible for the purpose of disproving …

Unreasonable: Involuntary Medications, Incompetent Criminal Defendants, And The Fourth Amendment, Dora W. Klein

Faculty Articles

Involuntary medical treatment potentially compromises several individual constitutional interests. However, like all individual constitutional rights, rights under both the Due Process Clause and the Fourth Amendment can be outweighed by sufficiently important governmental interests.

To determine whether involuntary medical treatment violates the Due Process Clause, courts ask whether the government’s interest that the treatment advances is important enough to justify compromising the individual’s interest in making an autonomous decision to refuse medical treatment. Involuntary treatment must also be medically appropriate, but any physical harms that the treatment might cause are not balanced directly against the government’s interest.

When the government …

Autonomy And Acute Psychosis: When Choices Collide, Dora W. Klein

Faculty Articles

Professor Elyn Saks is a well-recognized expert in mental health law, and is training to become a psychoanalyst. Her latest book reflects her continued interest in mental health issues, but this book differs from her previous works because it is written in the voice of someone who has a personal stake in the topic.

In The Center Cannot Hold: My Journey Through Madness, Saks recounts her own experience of schizophrenia, the most serious of all mental illnesses. Beginning with some “little quirks” in childhood and progressing to full-fledged psychosis by her first year at Yale Law School, Sak’s illness caused …

Categorical Exclusions From Capital Punishment: How Many Wrongs Make A Right?, Dora W. Klein

Faculty Articles

The two categorical exclusions of age and mental capacity will impact not only those offenders who are excluded from the death penalty, but also those offenders who remain subject to this punishment. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Roper v. Simmons and Atkins v. Virginia raise the issue that a capital-punishment-limiting decision possesses wrongs of its own. Both decisions limit the death penalty—Roper excludes from this punishment offenders who committed their crimes before they were eighteen years old and Atkins excludes offenders who are mentally retarded. But in both cases, the Supreme Court overstated the uniformity and universality of traits associated …

Curiouser And Curiouser: Involuntary Medications And Incompetent Criminal Defendants After Sell V. United States, Dora W. Klein

Faculty Articles

The government should not place a defendant to whom it is administering involuntary medications in front of a jury. The test the Supreme Court created in Sell v. United States will likely result in the administration of involuntary medications to incompetent defendants in more than rare instances. Given the importance of the right to a fair trial, and the threat to this right posed by administering involuntary medications, the Supreme Court understandably cautions in its decision in Sell that the instances in which the government will be justified in administering such medications for the purpose of rendering a defendant competent …

Involuntary Treatment Of The Mentally Ill: Autonomy Is Asking The Wrong Question, Dora W. Klein

Faculty Articles

When determining if involuntary treatment is appropriate, the proper question for courts to ask is not whether autonomy is preferable to involuntary treatment, but whether no treatment at all is preferable to involuntary treatment. When legislatures develop and courts apply statutes governing civil commitment, the interests at stake should be considered not at the abstract level of "freedom" or "autonomy," but rather at the concrete level of the consequences that are likely to result from providing or not providing involuntary treatment. Only by examining the particular interests that are likely to be affected can informed decisions be made about when …

Beyond Brown V. Board Of Education: The Need To Remedy The Achievement Gap, Dora W. Klein

Faculty Articles

Addresses the need to remedy the disparity in academic achievement of black and white students and examines why this disparity continues to exist in spite of the desegregation decrees issued under "Brown." Reviews how a court decides whether a school district has complied with a desegregation decree. Explains why schools are being released from desegregation decrees despite achievement gap.

Trial Rights And Psychotropic Drugs: The Case Against Administering Involuntary Medications To A Defendant During Trial, Dora W. Klein

Faculty Articles

This paper explores the legal problems that arise when the government undertakes to render a criminal defendant competent to stand trial, by administering involuntary psychotropic medications. Among these problems are the infringement of the defendant's trial rights, such as the right to receive assistance of counsel and to confront witnesses, as well as interference with the defendant's ability to testify and to present evidence of a mental illness. This paper explores these problems with special reference to the case of Russell Weston, who has been charged with murder in the deaths of two Capitol police officers and who spent more …