Document Type
Article
Publication Title
Emory Law Journal
Publication Date
Winter 1982
ISSN
0094-4076
Page Number
71
Keywords
constitutional law, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, psychiatric evidence
Disciplines
Criminal Law | Evidence | Law
Abstract
In Estelle v. Smith,' the United States Supreme Court recognized for the first time that an evaluation of a criminal defendant by a mental health professional may implicate both the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The issues raised in Estelle are significant not only for the legal profession but also for those in the mental health professions who perform "clinical" evaluations for the criminal courts. Estelle involved the case of Ernest Smith, who was sentenced to death by a Texas jury in 1974. Prior to trial, the judge ordered a psychiatrist, Dr. Grigson, to evaluate Smith's competency to stand trial. Grigson's ninety minute interview ranged well beyond the terms of the court order, however. The doctor not only provided the court with a report on Smith's competency and an unsolicited opinion about Smith's mental state at the time of the offense,' but subsequently used information obtained during his interview as the basis for testimony in support of the state's case at the sentencing proceeding held after Smith's conviction for capital murder.
Recommended Citation
Christopher Slobogin,
Estelle v. Smith: The Constitutional Contours of the Forensic Evaluation, 31 Emory Law Journal. 71
(1982)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications/1465