LANDMARK CASES T - V

Question 1

Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California (CA SC 1976) FOTC

Answer 1

• Poddar dated Tarasoff, didn’t know American norms, betrayed by relationships with other men
• Depression, went to student MH, revealed intention to get a gun and shoot and then unilaterally terminated tx
• Psychologist sent letter to police warning them, police interviewed Poddar and released on promise that he would stay away from Tarasoff
• Poddar moved in w/ Tarasoff’s brother. When she returned, Poddar stabbed her to death
• Parents sued police, student MH, and Regents UC for failure to warn

Question 2

Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California (CA SC 1976) Court History

Answer 2

• Trial court dismissed no cause of action (therapist had duty to patient but not 3rd party)
• COA supported dismissal
• Appealed CA SC, who reversed. Therapist has duty to use reasonable care to give threatened persons warnings as are essential to avoid foreseeable danger (Tarasoff I)
• Uproar among psychiatrists/police, so CA SC decided to rehear case (Tarasoff), case in question

Question 3

Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California (CA SC 1976) H

Answer 3

H: When therapist determines/should determine that serious danger of violence to another, incurs obligation to use reasonable care to protect intended victim, may require various steps - warn victim, notify police, or take whatever steps reasonably necessary

Question 4

Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California (CA SC 1976) R (Similar Medical, Violence Prediction, Negligence, General Idea, and Balancing Risks)

Answer 4

• Referenced precedent that doctors have been held liable for negligent failure to dx/warn of contagious disease
• Defendants argued unable to accurately predict violence: court said didn’t have to perfect, but exercise reasonable degree of skill/care ordinarily possessed by members of profession
• Proof, aided by hindsight, insufficient to establish negligence
• Ultimate issue one of social policy, not professional expertise
• Risk of unnecessary warnings is outweighed by benefit of possible lives saved

Question 5

Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California (CA SC 1976) Famous Quote

Answer 5

“Protective privilege ends where public peril begins.”

Question 6

Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California (CA SC 1976) Dissent

Answer 6

May increase violence bc pts might not seek tx and psychiatrists may overcommit to avoid liability

Question 7

Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California (CA SC 1976) State Alignments (2)

Answer 7

• Vast majority of state SCs that have addressed the issue have concurred w/ Tarasoff
• Many states have passed Tarasoff limiting statutes which usually require explicit threat, and duty is discharged if any number of things, such as notifying intended victim or LEO

Question 8

Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California (CA SC 1976) Ultimate Result

Answer 8

• Settled out of court for significant $$$
• Served 4 years manslaughter, ultimately overturned w/ faulty instructions
• 2nd trial not held on promise that would return, which he did and married there

Question 9

Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California (CA SC 1976) Effect on Psychotherapy

Answer 9

Predictions about drastic alterations to psychotherapy never really resulted; therapists were breaching confidentiality to protect foreseeable victims before decision

Question 10

United States v. Comstock (SCOTUS 2010) FOTC

Answer 10

• Comstock served sentence CP
• Just prior to release, found CACE as “sexually dangerous person” under 18 USC 4248, allowed for civil commitment afterwards
• He and 4 others challenged, $4248, saying violated 6th/8th/10th As, as well as D.P., double jeopardy, Ex Post Facto, and Necessary & Proper Clause (allows Congress to make laws req’d for exercise of other powers)

Question 11

United States v. Comstock (SCOTUS 2010) Court History and Issue

Answer 11

• Distr Co granted def’s dismissal saying statute should’ve required BARD and Congress exceeded legislative powers
• COA affirmed, but only on Congress exceeding powers under Necessary and Proper Clause (didn’t decide SOP Q or any other challenges
• SCOTUS granted cert limited to question of Congress’ authority under N & P
  ISSUE: Does the N & P Clause allow Congress to create legislation permitting civ commitment of sex offenders after completion of sentence?

Question 12

United States v. Comstock (SCOTUS 2010) H & R (5 Clause, Prev Statute, Custodial, 10th A, Scope)

Answer 12

H: Reversed and remanded. N & P Clause grants Congress sufficient authority for $4248. Didn’t opine on any other constitutional challenges
R:
1) Clause grants Congress broad authority to pass laws
2) Congress has already authorized civ commitment of fed prisoners with MI who are dangerous, $4248 is “modest addition”
3) Fed Gov’t, as custodian to prisoners, has power to protect community from potentially dangerous prisoners
4) 10th A does not limit the authority to states here
5) $4248 is narrow & doesn’t confer Congress general police power, which would be reserved to states

Question 13

United States v. Comstock (SCOTUS 2010) Dissent

Answer 13

$4248 didn’t execute an existing “enumerated power,” and the statute didn’t explicitly connect “SDP” to either subject’s crime or likelihood of violating laws in future

Question 14

United States v. Georgia (SCOTUS 2006) FOTC

Answer 14

• Goodman, paraplegic inmate, filed c/o GA DOC challenging conditions of confinement, basically cell not enough room to move around, no help self care/hygiene etc, and denied physical therapy/tx
• Claims under $1983 and ADA T II, injunctive relief & damages

Question 15

United States v. Georgia (SCOTUS 2006) Court History & Issue

Answer 15

• Claims under $1983 and ADA T II, injunctive relief & damages
• Distr Co dismissed
• COA said erred in dismissing $1983 claims, as there were 3 8th A claims
• Affirmed that Title II ADA claims barred by sovereign immunity
• SCOTUS granted Goodman’s petition to decide whether T II ADA abrogates state sovereign immunity
• US DOJ intervened on his behalf to defend constitutionality ADA
  Issue: Can disabled inmate sue State for money damages under T II ADA?

Question 16

United States v. Georgia (SCOTUS 2006) H & R (ADA Clause, Const Violations/Abrogations, Ultimate Conclusion)

Answer 16

H: If conduct violates 14th A, then T II ADA abrogates state sovereign immunity
R:
- ADA specifically states State not immune from violations in court
- Goodman exp’d 8th A violations, which applied to states via 14th A
- 14th A specifically states abrogation of sovereign immunity when violations of 14th A
- So Goodman can sue for money damages under T II ADA if violation of 14th A, but lower courts in better place to decide that

Question 17

Vitek v. Jones (SCOTUS 1980) FOTC

Answer 17

• Jones convicted robbery
• In prison, placed on solitary confinement, set mattress on fire and burned self
• Initially private hospital then state psych hospital
• NE law: if doc/psychologist found MI couldn’t be given proper tx in prison, prison dir could xfer to psych hosp
• Jones challenged this statute

Question 18

Vitek v. Jones (SCOTUS 1980) Distr Co Findings (and 4 Specifics) & Issue

Answer 18

• Said unconstitutional bc violated D.P., lacked following safeguards:
  1) Adequate notice
  2) Adversary hearing before independent decision maker
  3) Written finding
  4) Availability of written counsel
  Appealed SCOTUS
  ISSUE: Does 14th A D.P. require hearing before xfer to psych hospital?

Question 19

Vitek v. Jones (SCOTUS 1980) H & R (Previous, Liberty, Medical Decision, Atty, Independent Decision Maker)

Answer 19

H: Upheld Distr Co’s safeguards: invol xfer to psych hosp impinges on liberty interest protected by D.P.
R:
- Had already said D.P. rights for parolees and probationers before held in violation, same here/solitary
- Referred to commitment to psych as “massive curtailment of liberty” d/t stigma & behavior mod programs
- Medical nature not enough to justify dispensing D.P.
- Right to atty at hearing
- Independent decision maker doesn’t need to be from outside hospital

Question 20

3 D.P. Rights Cases

Answer 20

1. Specht v. Patterson - D.P. rights of sex offenders
2. Jackson v. Indiana - D.P. rights of ISTs
3. Vitek v. Jones - D.P. of prisoners xfer to psych hospital