# Are schizophrenic voices admissable as evidence? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 2, 2011, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-schizophrenic-voices-admissable-as-evidence/569905 "2011-02-02T16:57:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Eriond\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ad7895/32.png) [@Eriond\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eriond_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-schizophrenic-voices-admissable-as-evidence/569905/1 "2011-02-02T16:57:09Z")
Got a psuedo-legal question about a sci-fi story I’m writing, based a local CSUN student named David Everson [who was recently arrested for possessing a shotgun and bomb-making materials](http://sundial.csun.edu/2011/01/former-csun-student-pleads-not-guilty-to-felony-charges-of-possession-of-explosive-materials-and-having-gun-on-campus/) in his dorm room. (Not legal advice, not homework, la la la…) According to TV news, the boy was originally detained on 5150 (potential threat to himself or others) which made me wonder, if he’s crazy and talking to himself all the time, would his “argument with God” be admissable as evidence? Also (here’s the fictional part, naturally) what could logically happen if his adjacent dorm rooms were occupied by top-secret federal agents from CIA, Homeland Security, the TriLateral Commission, the Bavarian Illuminati, etc…all in a coordinated effort to frame him for “knowing too much” about how [dreamcatchers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_catcher) work? If “David” was able to prove he was sane all the time, and the evidence inside his dorm room was planted by South Park Leprechauns, could that get him and his associated friends off the hook? ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-schizophrenic-voices-admissable-as-evidence/569905/2 "2011-02-02T18:31:46Z")
It’s your story; you can make it admissible. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-schizophrenic-voices-admissable-as-evidence/569905/3 "2011-02-02T20:54:11Z")
Under certain circumstances, witnesses can repeat things that they heard the person say. “She was saying, “I’ll get you, Pretty, and your little dog, too!”” If the words he is saying can be shown to bear on the crime (demonstrating motivation, state of mind, etc), it can be made admissible. ---
**Author:** ![irishgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8edcca/32.png) [@irishgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/irishgirl)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-schizophrenic-voices-admissable-as-evidence/569905/4 "2011-02-02T21:48:02Z")
But, in reality schizophrenics who have auditory hallucinations DON’T, in general, have coherent one sided conversations where their mind supplies the other “speaker”. A schizophrenic person commonly might laugh at something out of the blue, or turn towards an empty area of the room, or mutter, shout or say a few incongruous words. An entire argument or conversation, that a third party could actually follow- not so much. “Responding to auditory hallucinations” doesn’t usually mean having a nice chat, or even an impassioned argument, with unseen people. Your main stumbling block, as I see it, won’t be whether your evidence is legally admissable (which you could make it), but whether the “evidence” would actually convince a real mental health professional that the character had schizophrenia. Tapes of someone having “conversations with God” are more likely to ping a psychiatrist’s bullshit meter than cause them to diagnose schizophrenia, and would make the entire scenario unbelievable to any readers with experience of people with actual schizophrenia. ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-schizophrenic-voices-admissable-as-evidence/569905/5 "2011-02-02T21:50:25Z")
> [@](#): > > If “David” was able to prove he was sane all the time, and the evidence inside his dorm room was planted by South Park Leprechauns, could that get him and his associated friends off the hook? If he could prove it then of course he would be let off the hook. What would be the point of convicting him? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-schizophrenic-voices-admissable-as-evidence/569905/6 "2011-02-02T22:03:43Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Under certain circumstances, witnesses can repeat things that they heard the person say. “She was saying, “I’ll get you, Pretty, and your little dog, too!”” > > If the words he is saying can be shown to bear on the crime (demonstrating motivation, state of mind, etc), it can be made admissible. A statement made by a party to the lawsuit…here, a criminal defendant…is not hearsay. Here’s the [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law) article on hearsay. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-schizophrenic-voices-admissable-as-evidence/569905/7 "2011-02-02T22:04:02Z")
The thing to keep in mind is that changes in society and (especially) the laws of reality are reflected (eventually) in man-made laws and court procedure. For example, if mind-reading is an established fact in the world your story is in, there will be an established body of blackletter and case law relevant to how society deals with mind-readers, and courts will have procedure to deal with how mind-reading is (or isn’t) used in the courtroom. This is a common failing in speculative fiction authors, in fact: Nobody seems to work out the implications of what changes they’re making. Look at 1950s SF, for example, with stay-at-home wives getting bored overseeing a small army of robotic maids and cooks. Now… what do _you_ think total home mechanization would lead to? [This is a great essay on precisely this problem](http://lesswrong.com/lw/hq/universal_fire/): > [@](#): > > In L. Sprague de Camp’s fantasy story _The Incomplete Enchanter_ (which set the mold for the many imitations that followed), the hero, Harold Shea, is transported from our own universe into the universe of Norse mythology. This world is based on magic rather than technology; so naturally, when Our Hero tries to light a fire with a match brought along from Earth, the match fails to strike. > > I realize it was only a fantasy story, but… how do I put this… > > _No._ > > [snip] > > If a match stops working, so do you. You can’t change just one thing. You can fudge this, but it makes the fiction more immersive if you _do_ work out at least a few of the implications so you can surprise the reader by being a few steps ahead of them. Besides, the implications can be interesting hooks to hang more plot elements. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-schizophrenic-voices-admissable-as-evidence/569905/8 "2011-02-02T22:59:01Z")
I remember hearing once about a defendant who wanted his conviction thrown out because his confession had been coerced - by God. He claimed God appeared to him and told him to admit the crime, even though he really didn’t want to. ---
**Author:** ![Reloy3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c68b51/32.png) [@Reloy3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reloy3)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-schizophrenic-voices-admissable-as-evidence/569905/9 "2011-02-02T23:04:36Z")
It would be admissable under any number of reasons. As an attorney who represents a relatively large number of court-appointed clients that the state is attempting to involuntarily commit to a local mental-health hospital, I can say it happens frequently. If my schizophrenic clients don’t burst out incriminating statements in court, there is usually testimony about such out of court statements. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2011, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-schizophrenic-voices-admissable-as-evidence/569905/10 "2011-02-03T16:47:03Z")
A defendant can testify about anything relevant and legally admissible that he wants to, although often it would be against advice of counsel, and extremely foolish of him to do so. If he wanted to explain that voices asked him to do something, or that South Park Leprechauns planted evidence in his room, he could do so. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > I remember hearing once about a defendant who wanted his conviction thrown out because his confession had been coerced - by God. He claimed God appeared to him and told him to admit the crime, even though he really didn’t want to. There’s an old courthouse story here about a defendant who couldn’t afford a lawyer and refused to be represented by the Public Defender in a felony case. “God is my lawyer,” he declared to the judge. “God is not admitted to the Ohio bar, as far as I know,” said the judge. “But if He makes a timely appearance, I’ll permit Him to represent you _pro hac vice_.” > **[Pro hac vice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_hac_vice)** > > In the legal field in the United States, admission pro hac vice (.mw-parser-output .IPA-label-small{font-size:85%}.mw-parser-output .references .IPA-label-small,.mw-parser-output .infobox .IPA-label-small,.mw-parser-output .navbox .IPA-label-small{font-size:100%}English: /proʊ hæk ˈviːtʃeɪ/, Latin for "for this occasion") is a practice in common law jurisdictions whereby a lawyer who has not been admitted to practice in a certain jurisdiction is allowed to participate in a particular case in t ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2011, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-schizophrenic-voices-admissable-as-evidence/569905/11 "2011-02-03T22:25:37Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > A statement made by a party to the lawsuit…here, a criminal defendant…is not hearsay. > > Here’s the [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law) article on hearsay. Yeah, I guess my statement isn’t clear. I didn’t mean to imply it would be hearsay. ---
**Author:** ![Eriond\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ad7895/32.png) [@Eriond\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eriond_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2011, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-schizophrenic-voices-admissable-as-evidence/569905/12 "2011-02-03T23:07:01Z")
> [@Reloy3](#): > > If my schizophrenic clients don’t burst out incriminating statements in court, there is usually testimony about such out of court statements. Well, as for the actual CSUN student, he was clearly hiding dangerous material, there’s no reason to disbelieve that. Can’t reveal the details of my emerging novel, but it’s basically the reverse – my schizo character is innocent, but is “tricked” into admitting fault while corrupt gov’t agents (in concert with the Bavarian Illuminati, several Lovecraftian demons, and extraterrestrials from Planet Zeta…it’s a work in progress) plant the evidence and frame him for it. > [@irishgirl](#): > > But, in reality schizophrenics who have auditory hallucinations DON’T, in general, have coherent one sided conversations where their mind supplies the other “speaker”. > > A schizophrenic person commonly might laugh at something out of the blue, or turn towards an empty area of the room, or mutter, shout or say a few incongruous words. An entire argument or conversation, that a third party could actually follow- not so much. Really?? Every time I see someone having an argument with themselves I assume they’re crazy, unless they’re talking on a bluetooth. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-schizophrenic-voices-admissable-as-evidence/569905/13 "2011-02-04T09:15:44Z")
> [@Eriond\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Really?? Every time I see someone having an argument with themselves I assume they’re crazy, unless they’re talking on a bluetooth. Crazy in the colloquial sense, perhaps. But they don’t necessarily have a mental disorder, and definitely not necessarily schizophrenia. For example, my uncle sometimes talks to himself in a quite spirited manner, but its more of a social skills/impulse control deficit. It’s closer to him just having his inner dialog out loud. Stuff like “Bob, that’s stupid. You shouldn’t be doing that” can sound like an argument, but it’s really not. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-schizophrenic-voices-admissable-as-evidence/569905/14 "2011-02-04T16:45:59Z")
I’m convinced some people post here in just that manner. ---
**Author:** ![Thylacine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thylacine/32/1143_2.png) [@Thylacine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thylacine)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-schizophrenic-voices-admissable-as-evidence/569905/15 "2011-02-04T20:44:33Z")
I get calls all the time from people who want their voices arrested (yeah, my job is interesting) but any crimes committed due to them land the person hearing them in chemical straightjackets on locked wards, either in hospital or prison with no chance to prove that the voices were in fact reality based. Schizophrenia is only one possible cause of auditory hallucinations but if they cause you to do something deemed bad few go looking for other explanations in the haste to save society from you. > **[Auditory hallucination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_hallucination)** > > An auditory hallucination, or paracusia, is a form of hallucination that involves perceiving sounds without auditory stimulus. While experiencing an auditory hallucination, the affected person would hear a sound or sounds which did not come from the natural environment. > A common form of auditory hallucination involves hearing one or more voices without a speaker present, known as an auditory verbal hallucination. This may be associated with psychotic disorders, most notably schizophrenia, and t...