| dbo:abstract
|
- Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court case. The Court ruled on the admissibility of clinical opinions given by two psychiatrists hired by the prosecution in answer to hypothetical questions regarding the defendant's future dangerousness and the likelihood that he would present a continuing threat to society in this Texas death penalty case. The American Psychiatric Association submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of the defendant's position that such testimony should be inadmissible and urging curtailment of psychiatric testimony regarding future dangerousness and a prohibition of such testimony based on hypothetical data. In Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981), the Supreme Court previously ruled on a Texas death penalty case regarding the use of a psychiatric examination to determine the defendant's competency to stand trial to predict future dangerousness. In that case the Court held that the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination applied to pretrial psychiatric examinations by a prosecution psychiatrist who later testified regarding the defendant's future dangerousness without warning the defendant that such evidence could be used against him. The Court reasoned that although a defendant has no generalized constitutional right to remain silent at a psychiatric examination limited to the issues of sanity or competency, full Miranda warnings must be given with respect to testimony concerning future dangerousness. (en)
|
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 11311 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:arguedate
|
- 0001-04-26 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:argueyear
| |
| dbp:case
|
- Barefoot v. Estelle, (en)
|
| dbp:concurrence
| |
| dbp:courtlistener
| |
| dbp:decidedate
|
- 0001-07-06 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:decideyear
| |
| dbp:dissent
|
- Marshall (en)
- Blackmun (en)
|
| dbp:findlaw
| |
| dbp:fullname
|
- Thomas A. Barefoot, Petitioner v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent (en)
|
| dbp:googlescholar
| |
| dbp:holding
|
- There is no merit to petitioner's argument that psychiatrists, individually and as a group, are incompetent to predict with an acceptable degree of reliability that a particular criminal will commit other crimes in the future, and so represent a danger to the community. (en)
|
| dbp:joindissent
|
- Brennan (en)
- Brennan, Marshall (en)
|
| dbp:joinmajority
|
- Burger, Powell, Rehnquist, O'Connor (en)
|
| dbp:justia
| |
| dbp:litigants
| |
| dbp:loc
| |
| dbp:majority
| |
| dbp:oyez
| |
| dbp:parallelcitations
| |
| dbp:prior
| |
| dbp:subsequent
| |
| dbp:uspage
| |
| dbp:usvol
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court case. The Court ruled on the admissibility of clinical opinions given by two psychiatrists hired by the prosecution in answer to hypothetical questions regarding the defendant's future dangerousness and the likelihood that he would present a continuing threat to society in this Texas death penalty case. The American Psychiatric Association submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of the defendant's position that such testimony should be inadmissible and urging curtailment of psychiatric testimony regarding future dangerousness and a prohibition of such testimony based on hypothetical data. (en)
|
| rdfs:label
| |
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| foaf:name
|
- (en)
- Thomas A. Barefoot, Petitioner v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent (en)
|
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
