As per this article from NY Times, James Holmes, aka the Batman killer, has been ordered to undergo a “narcoanalytic interview” involving a truth serum, as well as a lie detector test to help establish whether he is legally insane.
Is there any chance that this ruling will be allowed to stand? I thought both “truth serums” and lie detector tests had no standing within the Justice system? I realize Colorado law has differences to other states, or other nations, but I would be surprised if this was an allowable procedure under any “civilized” jurisdiction and that truth serums and lie detectors remained in the realm of pseudo-science, but if a Judge ordres it, it cannot be that far-fetched an idea any more?
Or is it merely media sensationalism at work yet again?
(This might very well belong in a different forum, but I’m hoping there are some factual answers here).
Yes, he is, and yes he will. This is a question about the particulars about how the court will go about deciding whether he is insane or not, and not about what happens to him.
I was under the distinct impression lie detectors and truth serums had no place in the modern judicial system, and wondered therefore whether my understanding is wrong.
If this were about determining his ability to stand trial, then it sounds oddly reasonable, given certain caveats. If it’s about determining whether he is not guilty by reason of insanity then it stinks. The burden of proof to determine he his not guilty by reason of insanity should be on him, without interference from the judge. You might as well have someone claiming self defense be subject to a truth serum to determine if he really did fear for his life.
The results of the “treatment” will end up in a psychiatric evaluation that will be handed to the court saying either “whackadoodle” or “warped but sane enough to stand trial”. If these are standard pyschiatric procedures, then they should be valid. If his lawyer objects, I suppose he can bring in his own paid mouthpeices to run similar tests and prove the opposite.
What you are thinking of is more along the lines of thsi - you can’t use what the guy says, while under drugs or under a lie detector test, as testimony to “prove” his guilt. So whatever happens during these tests, the only thing the shrinks can say is “In my professional opinion, this man is lucid but attempting to pretend to be irrational; based on tests I’ve done”. he can’t say “He admitted doing it” or “he admitted planning it”.
Of course, the question becomes where doctor-patient confidentiality comes in. As an obvious employee of the state, presumably it is known beforehand that whatever the guy says (outside of altered drug states) is admissible just as if he told the police. However, the lie detector operator cannot testify about “when he said that he was lying” or similar results.
Of course, depneding on point of view, maybe he thinks a life on th funny farm is preferable to a life in Sing-Sing. Plus, IIRC, you might actually get let out of the hospital if you can con enough psychiatrists that you are “cured”.
He can consent to such methods. The article seems to suggest that his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is a consent to allow the prosecution to conduct such tests.
Does your right not to incriminate extend to a right not to be pschiatrically evaluated?
The issue being invstigated is not “tell us if you did it” bit “prove to us your mental capability”.
Then there’s the whle issue about being forced to take medication that renders you lucid - which I believe has been the basis of several cases (and L&O episodes) before, though I don’t remember the outcome.
The judge entered a plea of “not guilty”; this is the standard practice when a defendant refuses to plead, as a plea must be entered. His attorneys “weren’t ready”? Now that’s bullshit. They wanted the judge to enter the plea.
He/they can change the plea later, if they choose. The matter of insanity does not need to be decided now, and the drugs ‘n’ lie detector exam only comes up if they change the plea to “not guilty by reason of insanity.” Bear in mind we’re talking about legal insanity here, which has little or nothing to do with the fact that he’s clearly nuts.
Yes, the judge has the right and the duty to enter a “not guilty” plea. But that doesn’t mean that it is a “by insanity” defense. By ordering questioning of a suspect who has not waived his rights not to testify, this is setting up an appeal. In short, a trick by the defense lawyers to argue that the ultimate verdict was based on improper questioning and it must be thrown out and he gets to walk free due to no retrial. The judge should hold the lawyers in contempt for not being ready to enter a plea. Absent that, the judge should enter a “not guilty” plea for the defendant. Insanity is a defense that must be asserted. Asserting it waives rights.
On edit, I don’t do any criminal work, I am just expressing broad principles as I understand them.
I find this discussion very interesting. As to md2000 here, I see no difference, and personally have no problem FWIW, in requiring a psychiatric evaluation than than there is in the evaluation of intoxication by a highway police officer ordering you to walk a straight line, not to speak of ordering you to take a turn with the breathalyzer.
Judges can and have always ordered psych evaluations when there is a question about mental capacity. the question is whether a drugging is a valid part of such test, or whether it requires consent. Also, whether a lie-detector test is a valid evaluation technique or whether it need consent?
Catch-22 - who is qualified to give consent if the person’s sanity is in question? (I’m guessing to cover all bases, the person and his next of kin…)
I suspect the “not ready” is lawyerspeak for “my client has ordered me not to enter a plea, but I can’t outright refuse to answer”; or maybe “my client won’t even talk to me so I don’t know his wishes”.
Remember, if his words under duress - drugs or polygraph - do not create “tainted fruit” evidence, are not used in court, then the only question is whether forcing him into those situationas as part of evaluation is maltreatment that would allow him to go free (like the police beating him or something). I suspect the judge and psychiatrists have some precedent on their side.
It’s definitely done - the shooter of Gabrielle Giffords and other victims, Jared Lee Loughner, was forcibly medicated for schizophrenia for months in order to get him to a competency hearing.
Legally I don’t know how to describe it, but the highway patrol officer’s suggestions, then, are close, if not equivalent, to an offer they can’t refuse.
The distinction here is that he is going to be questioned, not medicated.
Both of these men are being portrayed in the press as obviously insane. This is a huge and growing problem in the USA because mental health is not covered by insurance in many cases and left untreated. The access to alcohol, drugs and violence depictions that are glorified seem to converge to make us the most violent developed country in the world.
You can refuse in California I am told. I do not practice drunk driving law in California. However, I have been asked at sobriety check points whether I have been drinking, to please get out of the car, etc. I politely refuse to do these things “on the grounds that it may incriminate me.” They wave me on. Now, keep in mind, I barely drink and never drive after having even a sip of wine. It is obvious that I am trying to take up their time as much as possible and waste it as a protest.
