Supreme Court Rulings On Forensic Psychology
1. Frye v. United States (1923)
Key Issue: Admissibility of scientific evidence (the "general acceptance" standard)
Background: Frye involved the use of a systolic blood pressure deception test (early lie detector) as evidence in a criminal trial.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that scientific evidence is admissible only if the technique or principle is "generally accepted" by experts in the relevant field.
Impact on Forensic Psychology: This case established the "Frye Standard," requiring psychological or forensic methods (like polygraphs, psychological tests) to be generally accepted by the scientific community before they can be used in court.
2. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993)
Key Issue: Admissibility of expert testimony and scientific evidence (Daubert Standard)
Background: Daubert dealt with the admissibility of expert testimony on the effects of a drug. The Supreme Court was asked to clarify the standards for scientific evidence admissibility.
Ruling: The Court held that the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rule 702) superseded the Frye Standard. Judges act as "gatekeepers" and must ensure that scientific testimony is both relevant and reliable based on factors such as:
Testability of the theory or technique
Peer review and publication
Known or potential error rates
General acceptance within the relevant scientific community
Impact on Forensic Psychology: Daubert broadened the approach to evaluating forensic psychological evidence and assessments, allowing new methods to be admitted if they meet the reliability and relevance criteria.
3. Barefoot v. Estelle (1983)
Key Issue: Use of psychiatric predictions of future dangerousness in capital sentencing
Background: Barefoot involved whether psychiatrists could testify about a defendant’s potential future dangerousness to influence death penalty sentencing.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that psychiatric predictions about future violence, though uncertain, were admissible in capital sentencing decisions.
Impact on Forensic Psychology: This case underscored the role and limitations of forensic psychologists/psychiatrists in predicting dangerousness and influencing sentencing, even though such predictions have significant uncertainty.
4. Godinez v. Moran (1993)
Key Issue: Competency to waive the right to counsel and plead guilty
Background: Godinez involved a defendant’s competency to waive legal rights and plead guilty.
Ruling: The Court ruled that the competency standard for standing trial is the same as the competency to waive counsel or plead guilty. The decision emphasized that competency involves understanding the legal proceedings and consequences.
Impact on Forensic Psychology: This ruling highlights the importance of forensic psychological evaluations in competency determinations, affecting defendants’ legal rights and court outcomes.
5. Estelle v. Smith (1981)
Key Issue: Fifth Amendment rights and psychological evaluations for sentencing
Background: Smith challenged the use of psychiatric evaluation evidence obtained without his being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that compelling a psychiatric evaluation for sentencing purposes without advising the defendant of their right against self-incrimination violated the Fifth Amendment.
Impact on Forensic Psychology: This case established that defendants must be warned about self-incrimination protections before being subjected to forensic psychological evaluations, protecting their constitutional rights.
Summary:
Frye (1923): Scientific evidence must be generally accepted.
Daubert (1993): Judges act as gatekeepers to ensure reliability/relevance of scientific evidence.
Barefoot (1983): Psychiatric predictions of dangerousness are admissible, despite uncertainties.
Godinez (1993): Competency standards apply equally to waiving rights and pleading guilty.
Estelle (1981): Fifth Amendment rights protect against compelled psychiatric evaluations without warnings.
These rulings collectively shape how forensic psychology evidence and expert testimony are integrated into the legal system, balancing scientific validity with defendants' constitutional protections.
RELATED Blog
0 comments