Are you an Employer?    Attract the Best Candidates with Smart Job Postings! Search Legal Resumes
Legal Jobs Board for Attorneys, Law Students & Legal Staff | Serving USA & Other Countries | LawCrossing

Need Help? Call (800) 973-1177 

Job Seeker Login   Employer Login 

Job Seekers?  Try it Now  

ATTORNEY JOBS
LAW STUDENT JOBS
LEGAL STAFF JOBS
See Law Jobs We Have Recently Researched and Located for You
What Where
Show Recruiter Jobs  

Show Refreshed Jobs  



Search in Job Title Only
Job Type:
Employer Type:

+ Browse Legal Jobs     + Advanced Search     + Search Tips     + Upload Legal Resume
Legal Jobs >> Legal Articles >> Court Reporter >> The case of providing evidence of defendant being mentally deranged
  • Court Reporter

The case of providing evidence of defendant being mentally deranged


by      

The Supreme Court tackled the question in June with its gummy opinion in the case of Eric Michael Clark. A Texas court pondered the question last week in the retrial of Andrea Yates for drowning her five children. Once again the millwheels of the law are grinding away at the insanity defense. How does a defendant prove he's legally deranged? How does the state prove he's not?

To say that the high court "tackled" the question in the Clark case is to tie a vigorous verb to a limp reality. Justice David Souter, writing for a 5-4 court, barely got a hand on a question of law that has baffled English-speaking jurists for at least 400 years. Justice Anthony Kennedy was no more lucid in dissent. They agree on this much: There is such a thing as lunacy, and lunatics should not be punished as others are punished. But how to prove? How to punish?

Justice Souter spelled out the facts. In the early hours of June 21, Officer Jeffrey Moritz of the Flagstaff, Ariz., police was alerted to a pickup truck that had been circling a residential block with its radio blaring. Moritz was in uniform. He turned on the emergency lights and siren of his marked patrol car. Eric Clark, the truck's driver (then 17), pulled over. Moritz got out of the patrol car and told Clark not to move. Less than a minute later, Clark shot the officer, who died soon thereafter. Clark ran away but was arrested later that day with gunpowder residue on his hands. The gun that killed the officer was found nearby stuffed into a knit cap.

Police charged the youth with first-degree murder. He pleaded insanity and was first committed to a state hospital. After two years he was found competent to stand trial. In court he relied again on a defense of paranoid schizophrenia, i.e., that "at the time of the commission of the criminal act he was afflicted with a mental disease or defect of such severity that he did not know the criminal act was wrong."

The prosecution, for its part, argued that Clark knew perfectly well that Moritz was an officer. He was in police uniform and was driving a marked police car, with its siren and emergency lights in full operation. Moreover, Clark had fled the scene. A few weeks before the homicide he had told some people he wanted to shoot police officers.

The trial court found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The appellate courts affirmed and the case moved up to the U.S. Supreme Court. After barely two months' deliberation the high court also affirmed. Nothing in the concept of "due process," said Justice Souter, prevents Arizona from defining its insanity test narrowly. The state must demonstrate only that Clark was not afflicted with a mental disease "of such severity that he did not know his criminal act was wrong."

After 16 years on the high court, Souter remains a stylistic disappointment. Now and then — rarely — he gets off a sentence of remarkable clarity. Mostly he writes in paragraphs of impenetrable prose, festooned with a fungal clutter of unnecessary footnotes. He says: "Though Clark is correct that the application of the moral incapacity test (telling right from wrong) does not necessarily require evaluation of a defendant's cognitive capacity to appreciate the nature and quality of the act charged against him, see Brief for Petitioner 46-47, his argument fails to recognize that cognitive incapacity is itself enough to demonstrate moral incapacity. Cognitive incapacity, in other words, is a sufficient condition for establishing a defense of insanity, albeit not a necessary one."

In the final paragraphs of his 39-page opinion, Souter abruptly lapses into lucidity. He quotes approvingly from authorities who doubt that psychiatrists and psychologists are "more qualified than any other person" to give an opinion on whether a defendant's mental condition adds up to insanity.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, filed a salty dissent. (Justice Breyer dissented separately.) He fumes that Souter has invented an unworkable theory to justify a verdict of insanity. Then the majority applied the theory unfairly by holding Clark's counsel responsible for not having divined Souter's novel approach.

The long and short of it is that Eric Clark has been found sane enough to serve 20 years in the slammer. If he ever was crazy, nobody proved it.

(Letters to Mr. Kilpatrick should be sent by e-mail to kilpatjj@aol.com.)

COPYRIGHT 2005 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

This feature may not be reproduced or distributed electronically, in print or otherwise without the written permission of uclick and Universal Press Syndicate.


Related Article
The case of providing shelter to the homeless and its adverse repurcussions

The church views its overnight guests as God's children, fallen upon hard times. The city sees them as a bunch of bums who hang around all night and frighten the tourists away. ....

Interstate dominanace over domesitc waters. The case of Gerke Excavating Inc v. United States

In recent years, a highfalutin term of art has wandered impressively into federal jurisprudence. The term is ''hydrological connection.'' If this critter wanders your way, run for the hills! The feds may be coming. ....

The Case of a smoker Philp Morris and Tobacco companies

The U.S. Supreme Court seldom is concerned with ''justice.'' Its concern is with law, and law and justice are not necessarily the same thing. But if the high court wished to strike a blow for old-fashioned justice, it could agree to hear Case No. 05-1256, now pending on a petition for appeal. ....
Rate This Article
   Current rating: 5.5   |   View top rated articles

Printable Version    Printable Version PDF Version    PDF Version Email to a Friend    Email to a Friend
Comment    Post A Comment View Comment    View Comment Discuss    Discuss

Featured Testimonials

Thanks to LawCrossing that I found a job! It is an excellent website, definitely worth recommending to others.
Katrine Levin

Facts

LawCrossing Fact #185: Our application system allows you to apply for multiple jobs at the same time, saving time and energy!

"We want to hear your thoughts. Please comment on this article (below)!"

Comments


Article ID: 1800    

Article Title: The case of providing evidence of defendant being mentally deranged

Comment not found for this article.

Comment Comment

Facebook comments:


total jobs
49,831
Upload Your Resume
New Legal Jobs in Last 7 Days
13,454
Facebook Twitter
job search tip
Watch your body language. Don't fidget, cross your arms, slouch. Remember, everything you say and do broadcasts who you are.
LawCrossing



The Job Search Program that Guarantees Success.
Our career counselor creates a tailor-made job search strategy for you and walks you through every step of the process.
Create your unique brand for just $2,495!
2014 Most Influential Legal Recruiter Rankings
Get the ranking

Your privacy is guaranteed. We will never give out, lease, or sell your personal information.


Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss it, you will land among the stars.