Opinion ID: 392853
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Self-Incrimination Claim

Text: 6 Petitioner contends that admission of Dr. Patterson's testimony violated his fifth amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination as interpreted in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) and Estelle v. Smith, supra, --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359, because he was not advised prior to Dr. Patterson's testing that he had the right to remain silent and that, if he gave up that right, anything he said could be used against him in court at a sentencing proceeding. 6 The State argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Smith should not be applied retroactively and alternatively that, in any event, admission of Dr. Patterson's testimony did not violate petitioner's fifth amendment privilege. We have been enjoined by the Supreme Court to decide potentially dispositive questions regarding the retroactive application of substantive constitutional doctrine prior to passing on to substantive claims assertedly applying that doctrine to a particular case. 7 Accordingly, we first consider the question of whether the Supreme Court's application of Miranda in Smith to diagnostic examinations conducted by mental health experts should be given retroactive effect.
7 The constitution does not require that every decision of federal constitutional law be applied retroactively, and a federal court may apply a rule prospectively in certain circumstances. Brown v. Louisiana, 447 U.S. 323, 327, 100 S.Ct. 2214, 2219, 65 L.Ed.2d 159 (1980); Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 628-29, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 1737, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965). Whether a decision should be given retroactive or prospective application does not turn on the particular constitutional provision forming the basis for the principle expressed in the decision because  '(e)ach constitutional rule of criminal procedure has its own distinct functions, its own background of precedent, and its own impact on the administration of justice, and the way in which these factors combine must inevitably vary with the dictate involved.'  Id., at 327, 100 S.Ct. at 2214, quoting Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 728, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 1778, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966). Instead, the determination of whether a decision should be accorded retroactive or prospective effect focuses upon a two-part standard. The first part of this test gauges whether the principle in question is new or is simply a restatement of already established principles and the application of those principles to a particular set of facts. A decision establishes a new principle of law either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed. Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106, 92 S.Ct. 349, 355, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971) (citations omitted); Caver v. Alabama, 577 F.2d 1188, 1193 (5th Cir. 1978). Only a decision which establishes a new principle of law need be considered for prospective application. A decision which merely restates existing law or which simply applies already established law to a set of facts different from those which gave birth to the original principle is given retroactive application. United States v. Ross, 655 F.2d 1159, 1163 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (en banc). The second part of the test consists of an evaluation of the factors first set out in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 297, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 1970, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967): namely, the purpose of the new ruling, the extent to which law enforcement authorities may have relied upon the previous state of the law, and the impact of a retroactive application of the new federal constitutional principle on the administration of justice. Of these three factors, the first is clearly the most important and the others come into play chiefly when  'the purpose of the rule in question (does) not clearly favor either retroactivity or prospectivity.'  Brown v. Louisiana, supra, 447 U.S. at 328, 100 S.Ct. at 2219, quoting Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 251, 89 S.Ct. 1030, 1033, 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969). 8 In Smith, the Supreme Court held that the State's introduction into evidence of a court-appointed psychiatrist's testimony to prove a capital defendant's future dangerousness, based on information obtained by the psychiatrist from his interrogation of a defendant in custody who has neither requested the examination nor introduced psychiatric evidence on that issue, without a prior warning to the defendant that he has the right to remain silent and that any statement he made could be used against him at a sentencing proceeding, violated the rule adopted in Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. Miranda established a procedural rule prohibiting the state from introducing as part of its case in chief either inculpatory or exculpatory statements made by a defendant stemming from an official custodial interrogation unless that questioning had been preceded by warnings to that defendant sufficient to inform him of his privilege against self-incrimination. Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612. See Estelle v. Smith, supra, --- U.S. at ----, 101 S.Ct. at 1875; Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 443, 94 S.Ct. 2357, 2363, 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974). The procedural safeguards required by Miranda were not themselves rights protected by the Constitution but were instead measures to insure that the right against compulsory self-incrimination was protected, Michigan v. Tucker, supra, 417 U.S. at 444, 94 S.Ct. at 2364, and Miranda itself indicated that no talismanic incantation was required to satisfy its strictures. California v. Prysock, --- U.S. ----, ----, 101 S.Ct. 2806, 2809, 69 L.Ed.2d 696 (1981). Thus, the State must both admonish a putative defendant and obtain a valid waiver of his fifth amendment privilege as prerequisites for introducing any statement made by him during the course of an official custodial interrogation. 9 The Supreme Court held in Smith that Miranda was applicable in the circumstances of that case and required the reversal of the petitioner's death sentence. The Court decided that proof of a Texas capital defendant's guilt did not, by itself, remove the protection of the privilege against self-incrimination because the State must prove a capital defendant's future dangerousness as a separate and distinct requirement for imposing a capital sentence apart from proof of that defendant's guilt. Estelle v. Smith, supra, --- U.S. at ----, 101 S.Ct. at 1873. 8 The Court further held that a person's communications to a psychiatrist were testimonial in nature, and therefore protected by the privilege, where a psychiatrist based his diagnosis on the substance of (the defendant's) disclosures during the pretrial psychiatric examination. Id. at ----, 101 S.Ct. at 1874. 9 The Court also concluded that custodial interrogation by a court-appointed psychiatrist must be treated the same as a custodial interrogation by a police officer or prosecuting attorney for the purpose of determining the applicability of Miranda. Id. at ----, ----, 101 S.Ct. at 1875-76. Therefore, a custodial interrogation performed by a court-appointed psychiatrist used to establish an element of proof necessary to support the imposition of capital punishment must be preceded by a warning sufficient to advise a capital defendant of his fifth amendment privilege where the defendant has neither requested the examination nor introduced psychiatric evidence on the issue of future dangerousness. Estelle v. Smith, supra, --- U.S. at ----, 101 S.Ct. at 1875-76. 10 10 The State contends that the extension of the procedural safeguards (of Miranda) to psychiatric examinations, conducted by mental health professionals, who are not connected with law enforcement officials, originally conducted for neutral purposes, clearly presented an issue of first impression ... not clearly foreshadowed by any prior cases. Second Supplemental Brief for Respondent-Appellee at 7 (footnotes omitted). But the distinctions drawn by the State between Smith and Miranda do not withstand close scrutiny. In both cases an agent of the State conducted a custodial interrogation of a defendant, as those terms have been interpreted, 11 and the State thereby obtained statements from an accused which it then used as part of its case against the defendant. The only difference between the two situations is that the agent of the State who performed the custodial interrogation in Miranda was a police officer while the agent of the State who performed the custodial interrogation in Smith was a court-appointed psychiatrist. But the particular office that the official who performs the custodial interrogation represents is inconsequential because Miranda was not concerned with the division of responsibility between the various state investigatory agencies but was concerned with official custodial interrogations of an accused and the use of statements obtained from an accused without an attorney in such circumstances to prove the State's case against the accused. 12 The Miranda decision was designed to protect a putative defendant against the compulsion to incriminate himself arising from an official custodial interrogation. That compulsion can occur, however, from an interrogation conducted by a court-appointed psychiatrist as well as a police officer. The Smith decision merely recognized that a custodial interrogation conducted by a court-appointed psychiatrist raised the same concerns as a custodial interrogation conducted by a police officer and therefore must be preceded by the same warnings Miranda requires a police officer to give. 13 Therefore, while the Supreme Court had never held prior to Smith that Miranda warnings must be given to a defendant prior to a custodial interrogation performed by a court-appointed psychiatrist, the holding in Smith followed logically from the Miranda decision itself. Thus, Smith did not establish a new principle of federal constitutional law because that decision merely applied already fixed principles to a new factual situation. Accordingly, this holding in Smith must be given retroactive effect.
11 Application of Smith to the facts of this case requires that we set aside petitioner's death sentence. At the time of Dr. Patterson's testing of petitioner he was confined at the Tarrant County Jail and so was in custody for the purpose of determining the applicability of Miranda. 14 Dr. Patterson's testing constituted an interrogation of petitioner as that term has been defined under Miranda. 15 Dr. Patterson had been appointed by the state trial court to conduct the examination and therefore the custodial interrogation was conducted by an agent of the state. 16 Finally, Dr. Patterson did not advise petitioner of his fifth amendment privilege, and the defense neither requested an examination on future dangerousness nor introduced psychiatric or psychological testimony on that issue. Unless there is some significant difference between this case and Smith petitioner's death sentence must be vacated. 17 12 The State contends that this case is not controlled by Smith for several reasons, none of which we find persuasive. The State argues that petitioner's responses to Dr. Patterson's tests constituted real rather than testimonial evidence. However, here as in Smith the mental health expert who testified for the State based his analysis of petitioner's future dangerousness on the content of the responses given by the petitioner to the expert's tests. 18 Petitioner was not simply required to use his voice as an identifying physical characteristic but instead was required to speak his guilt by responding to Dr. Patterson's test questions. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 222-23, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1930, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967). Accord United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 6-7, 93 S.Ct. 764, 768, 35 L.Ed.2d 67 (1973); Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 266-67, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 1953, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967). Therefore, petitioner's responses constituted testimonial evidence. Estelle v. Smith, supra, --- U.S. at ----, 101 S.Ct. at 1873-74. 13 The State also contends that petitioner waived his fifth amendment privilege by requesting a psychiatric examination to determine his competency to stand trial and his sanity at the time of the commission of the crime. This argument however confuses the use of psychiatric examinations by the defense or the State to determine a defendant's competency to stand trial with the use of a psychiatric examination by the defense or the State to ascertain the defendant's insanity at the time of the crime. Each use of psychiatric testimony raises questions different from those raised by the other and different doctrines have developed to account for these different problems. 14 The use of a psychiatric or psychological examination to determine a defendant's competency to stand trial 19 is a separate matter as far as the fifth amendment privilege is concerned and is distinct from the use of a psychiatric or psychological examination to determine the defendant's culpability or responsibility for the crimes charged against him. The State's use of the results of a competency examination does not infringe upon a defendant's fifth amendment privilege because it does not assist the State in proving any of the elements necessary to support the imposition of a criminal punishment under state law. See Estelle v. Smith, supra, --- U.S. at ---- - ----, 101 S.Ct. at 1874-75. 20 Had Dr. Patterson's examination been used only to determine petitioner's competency to stand trial no Fifth Amendment issue would have arisen. Id. at ----, 101 S.Ct. at 1874; id. at ----, 101 S.Ct. at 1876. 15 However, when the same type of examination is used to determine a defendant's culpability or responsibility for the crimes charged against him the fifth amendment privilege is involved because the use of a psychiatric or psychological examination in this context may assist the State in establishing the basis for imposition of a criminal punishment. 21 This use of psychiatric or psychological testimony can arise in a variety of situations. One such situation was present in Smith. There the State used the results from a court-appointed psychiatric examination of a defendant who neither requested the examination nor introduced psychiatric testimony himself in order to prove an essential element under state law for imposing a criminal punishment. In that situation, the Supreme Court held that the defendant is entitled to the protection of the fifth amendment and also that a court-appointed psychiatrist must inform that defendant of his fifth amendment rights in accordance with Miranda prior to any custodial interrogation in order for the State to introduce at trial the results obtained from that interrogation. A different situation was present in United States v. Cohen, 530 F.2d 43 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 855, 97 S.Ct. 149, 50 L.Ed.2d 130 (1976). In Cohen, the federal government used the results of a court-appointed psychiatric examination only after the defense had introduced psychiatric testimony in order to raise a mental defense. In this situation, this Court held that the introduction by the defense of psychiatric testimony constituted a waiver of the defendant's fifth amendment privilege in the same manner as would the defendant's election to testify at trial. 22 Cohen, like virtually every other federal and state court addressing this issue, concluded that any burden imposed on the defense by this result is justified by the State's overwhelming difficulty in responding to the defense psychiatric testimony without its own psychiatric examination of the accused and by the need to prevent fraudulent mental defenses. 23 16 The State contends however that a defendant's mere submission to a psychiatric or psychological examination constitutes a waiver of the fifth amendment privilege. But the waiver doctrine is inapplicable, as here, when the defendant does not introduce the testimony of a mental health expert on the issue of a mental state relevant to the offense or a defense raised by the evidence in the case. Accordingly, a defendant can invoke the protection of the privilege when he does not introduce mental health expert testimony. Submitting to a psychiatric or psychological examination does not itself constitute a waiver of the fifth amendment's protection. Therefore, this ground offered by the State to distinguish the Smith case is untenable. 17 Finally, the State argues that Smith is distinguishable because the defense requested the psychiatric examination rather than the State and therefore the concerns prompting the Supreme Court to adopt Miranda are unnecessary to protect a person when he initiates the interrogation himself. While this factor is relevant once a defendant has been admonished in accordance with Miranda and Smith, see Edwards v. Arizona, --- U.S. ----, ---- - ---- & n. 9, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1884-85 & n. 9, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); id. at ---- - ----, 101 S.Ct. at 1887-89 (Powell, J., concurring), the fact that the defense requested the examination does not obviate the necessity for giving the Miranda warnings where the defense did not request such an examination on the question of future dangerousness. Miranda was designed to protect a putative defendant's fifth amendment privilege and thus he must be given the prescribed warnings prior to official custodial interrogation. The fact that defense counsel initially requested an examination to determine the petitioner's competency and sanity does not render Miranda inapplicable. 24