Abstract
In virtually all situations involving forensic psychiatric assessments, the patient is represented by counsel. But does this fact entitle the lawyer to be present at the clinical evaluation? In a series of New York cases spanning a generation, judges have allowed presence of counsel at the psychiatric examination. The most common reason given for such a conclusion is to assure better cross-examination of the expert witness. Psychiatric evaluations mandated by law necessitate several guidelines different from those of the usual doctor/patient relationship. While we may have to accept the presence of attorneys in our consulting rooms, they should be observers only. To allow active intervention would distort the clinical process.
Issue Section:
Research Papers
References
1.
MacKinnon
, R. A.
and Michels
, R.
, The Psychiatric Interview in Clinical Practice
, Saunders
, Philadelphia
, 1971
.2.
Reisner
, R.
, Law and the Mental Health System
, West Publishing
, St. Paul, MN
, 1985
.3.
Lee v. County Court of Erie County
. 27 N.Y. 2d 432, 318 N.Y.S. 2d 705, 267 N.E. 2d 452 (NY 1971).4.
United States v. Wade
, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S, Ct. 1926, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1149 (1967
).5.
People v. Broccolo
, 130 Misc, 2d 606, 497 N.Y.S. 2d 816 (Co. Ct. 1985
).6.
Milam v. Mitchell
, 51 Misc. 2d 948, 274 N.Y.S. 2d 326 (Sup. Ct. 1966
).7.
Murray v. Specialty Chems.
, 100 Misc. 2d 658, 418 N.Y.S. 2nd 748 (Sup. Ct. 1979
).8.
Jakubowski v. Lengen
, 86 A.D. 2d 398, 450 N.Y.S. 2d 612 (App. Div. 1982
).9.
Reardon v. Port Authority
, 132 Misc. 2d 212, 503 N.Y.S. 2d 233 (Sup. Ct. 1986
).10.
Hernandez v. Consolidated Edison
, New York Law Journal
, 10
06
1986
, p. 6 (Sup. Ct.).11.
Ponce' v. Health Insurance Plan of Greater N.Y.
, 100 A.D. 2d 963, 475 N.Y.S. 2d 102 (App. Div. 1984
).12.
Mosel v. Brookhaven Memorial Hospital
, 134 Misc. 2d 73, 509 N.Y.S. 2d 754 (Sup. Ct. 1986
).13.
Matter of Tanise B.
, 119 Misc. 2d 30, 462 N.Y.S. 2d 537 (Fam. Ct. 1983
), aff'd 98 A.D. 2d 689, 471 N.Y.S. 2d 242 (App. Div. 1983
).14.
Matter of Alexander L.
, 60 N.Y. 2d 329, 469 N.Y.S. 2d 626, 457 N.E. 2d 731 (NY 1983
).15.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, Matter of Alexander L., Brief for amicus curiae New York State Psychiatric Association.
16.
Matter of Alexander L.
, 112 A.D. 2d 902, 493 N.Y.S. 2d 157 (App. Div. 1985
).17.
Matter of Jose T.
, 126 Misc. 2d 559, 481 N.Y.S. 2d 991 (Fam. Ct. 1984
).18.
Rosenblitt v. Rosenblitt
, 107 A.D. 2d 292, 486 N.Y.S. 2d 741 (App. Div. 1985
).19.
Nalbandian v. Nalbandian
, 117 A.D. 2d 657, 498 N.Y.S. 2d 394 (App. Div. 1986
).20.
Sardella v. Sardella
, 125 A.D. 2d 384, 509 N.Y.S. 2d 109 (App. Div. 1986
).21.
Ughetto v. Acrish
, 130 A.D. 2d 12, 518 N.Y.S. 2d 398 (App. Div. 1987
) modifying 130 Misc. 2d 74, 494 N.Y.S. 2d 943 (Sup. Ct. 1985
), appeal dismissed 70 N.Y. 2d 871, 523 N.Y.S. 2d 497 (NY 1987
).22.
Rivers v. Katz
, 67 N.Y. 2d 485, 504 N.Y.S. 2d 74, 495 N.E. 2d 337 (NY 1986
).23.
Ake v. Oklahoma
, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S. Ct. 1087, 84 L. Ed. 2d 53 (1985
).24.
People v. Ortiz (Wanda)
, New York Law Journal
, 24
06
1986
, p. 7 (Sup. Ct.).25.
Thornton v. Corcoran
, 407 F. 2d 695 (D.C. Cir. 1969
).26.
United States v. Byers
, 740 F. 2d 1104 (D.C. Cir. 1984
).27.
Rachlin
, S.
, “From Impartial Expert to Adversary in the Wake of Ake
,” Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
, Vol. 16
, 03
1988
, pp. 25
-33
.28.
Guthiel
, T. G.
, Rachlin
, S.
, and Mills
, M. J.
, “Differing Conceptual Models in Psychiatry and Law
” in Legal Encroachment on Psychiatric Practice
, S.
Rachlin
, Ed., New Directions for Mental Health Services, No. 25
, San Francisco
, Jossey-Bass
, 1985
.
This content is only available via PDF.
All rights reserved. This material may not be reproduced or copied, in whole or in part, in any printed, mechanical, electronic, film, or other distribution and storage media, without the written consent of ASTM International.
You do not currently have access to this content.
