Case Law On Forensic Psychology In Criminal Trials
🧠 Concept Overview: Forensic Psychology in Criminal Trials
Forensic psychology bridges the gap between psychology and the law, focusing on understanding criminal behavior, assessing competency, determining insanity, evaluating witness credibility, and guiding sentencing or rehabilitation. Courts rely on psychological evaluations, expert testimony, and behavioral analysis to ensure justice, especially when mental health or cognitive capacity is in question.
Key areas where forensic psychology plays a major role:
Determining criminal responsibility (insanity, diminished capacity)
Assessing competency to stand trial
Evaluating mental state at the time of offense
Understanding eyewitness reliability and confessions
Providing risk assessments for parole or sentencing
⚖️ 1. McNaghten’s Case (1843) 10 Cl & Fin 200 — House of Lords, UK
Facts:
Daniel McNaghten, suffering from paranoid delusions, killed Edward Drummond believing he was under threat from the government.
Issue:
Could a person be held criminally responsible if they did not know the nature or wrongness of their act due to insanity?
Judgment & Principle:
The House of Lords laid down the McNaghten Rules, a foundational principle in forensic psychology and criminal law.
It held that:
To establish insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act, or that it was wrong.
Significance:
This case defined the legal test for insanity, shaping the basis for psychiatric evaluations in criminal trials worldwide.
⚖️ 2. Durham v. United States (1954) 214 F.2d 862 (U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit)
Facts:
Monte Durham, with a history of mental illness, was convicted of housebreaking. His counsel claimed that his crime was a product of mental disease.
Issue:
How should mental illness be defined in determining criminal responsibility?
Judgment & Principle:
The Court held that:
“An accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect.”
This became known as the Durham Rule or Product Test.
Significance:
It allowed greater role for psychological experts, shifting focus from mere diagnosis to the causal connection between mental illness and criminal act.
⚖️ 3. State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 — Supreme Court of India
Facts:
The accused was convicted of rape and murder of a minor. During the investigation, forensic psychology techniques such as narco-analysis and psychological interrogation were discussed.
Issue:
Whether statements or behaviors obtained through psychological methods could be used as evidence.
Judgment & Principle:
The Supreme Court observed that psychological evaluation or behavioral analysis could assist investigators but cannot replace legal evidence. However, such techniques can help corroborate intent, guilt consciousness, or deception.
Significance:
Recognized forensic psychology as a scientific aid to criminal investigation, though with limited evidentiary value unless corroborated.
⚖️ 4. State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case) (1999) 5 SCC 253
Facts:
Accused in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case underwent psychiatric and psychological evaluation during trial.
Issue:
Could psychological assessment determine criminal intent and suitability for capital punishment?
Judgment & Principle:
The Court accepted expert psychiatric testimony on the mental condition, suggestibility, and indoctrination of the accused as a factor in sentencing decisions, especially regarding mitigating circumstances.
Significance:
Set a precedent for considering psychological profiles in sentencing, particularly in death penalty cases.
⚖️ 5. Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1964 SC 1563)
Facts:
The accused killed his wife but claimed he was suffering from temporary insanity.
Issue:
Whether the burden of proving insanity lies on the prosecution or defense.
Judgment & Principle:
The Supreme Court held that:
The burden of proof initially lies on the accused to show the probability of insanity.
However, once some evidence is introduced, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove sanity beyond reasonable doubt.
Significance:
Clarified the evidentiary balance in insanity pleas — a critical area of forensic psychological testimony.
⚖️ 6. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263 — Supreme Court of India
Facts:
This case involved the use of narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain-mapping tests during investigation.
Issue:
Whether involuntary use of such psychological tests violates personal liberty under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Judgment & Principle:
The Supreme Court ruled:
Forcing an accused to undergo such tests without consent violates the right against self-incrimination.
Voluntary tests, with proper safeguards and consent, could be used for investigative assistance, not as direct evidence.
Significance:
A landmark ruling balancing forensic psychology with human rights, emphasizing ethical and constitutional limits of psychological evidence.
⚖️ 7. R v. Byrne (1960) 2 QB 396 — Court of Criminal Appeal, UK
Facts:
Byrne, a sexual psychopath, strangled and mutilated a woman. Psychiatric experts testified that his mental abnormality impaired his control over actions.
Issue:
Could such psychological conditions reduce murder to manslaughter?
Judgment & Principle:
The Court held that abnormality of mind (recognized psychiatric condition) affecting self-control or judgment could amount to diminished responsibility.
Significance:
Pioneered the use of forensic psychiatric testimony to determine the extent of moral culpability.
⚖️ 8. People v. Hawthorne (1940) 293 N.W. 205 (Michigan Supreme Court, USA)
Facts:
A psychologist with extensive experience was barred from testifying about insanity because he wasn’t a medical doctor.
Issue:
Can a psychologist, rather than a psychiatrist, qualify as an expert witness on insanity?
Judgment & Principle:
The Court ruled that expertise is determined by knowledge, not degree. A psychologist with substantial training and experience can testify on insanity.
Significance:
Expanded the scope of forensic psychology experts beyond psychiatrists, validating psychologists’ role in court testimony.
⚖️ 9. United States v. Brawner (1972) 471 F.2d 969 (D.C. Circuit Court)
Facts:
Brawner killed a man and claimed insanity under the Durham Rule.
Judgment & Principle:
The Court replaced the Durham Rule with the ALI (American Law Institute) Test, which stated:
A person is not responsible if, at the time of the act, they lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of their conduct or conform it to the law.
Significance:
Introduced a balanced psychological and legal test for insanity, integrating medical, cognitive, and volitional components.
⚖️ 10. State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta (2012) 1 SCC 602
Facts:
The accused killed his wife and claimed insanity. Medical records showed intermittent mental illness.
Judgment & Principle:
The Supreme Court held that mere history of mental illness is not enough; there must be evidence showing unsoundness of mind at the time of the act.
Significance:
Reinforced the temporal link between mental state and act — a cornerstone of forensic psychological evaluation in trials.
🧩 Conclusion
Forensic psychology has transformed criminal trials by:
Providing scientific insights into criminal intent, behavior, and mental capacity.
Shaping legal doctrines like insanity, diminished responsibility, and competency to stand trial.
Ensuring that justice balances accountability and compassion for mental disorders.
✅ Key Takeaways
| Principle | Case | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Insanity | McNaghten’s Case (1843) | Established insanity test |
| Product of Mental Disease | Durham v. U.S. (1954) | Expanded role of psychology |
| Psychological Tests & Rights | Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) | Set limits on narco/polygraph use |
| Expert Testimony | People v. Hawthorne (1940) | Allowed psychologists as experts |
| Diminished Responsibility | R v. Byrne (1960) | Recognized mental abnormality in sentencing |
| Burden of Proof | Dahyabhai v. State of Gujarat (1964) | Clarified insanity proof standard |
| Sentencing Factors | Nalini Case (1999) | Used psychology in death penalty context |
RELATED Blog
0 comments