https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barefoot_v._Estelle
Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983), is a
United States Supreme Court case.
[1] 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.
[2][3]
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.
[2]
но ты преувеличиваешь, что у психиатров только мнение, такое же, как у "окружающих" , как ты сказал.
