Opinion ID: 381252
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Role of the Defendant's Choice

Text: 31 We cannot abdicate to the defendant the judicial duty to explore the issue once sufficient questions are raised. 77 Nonetheless, our reasoning does not disparage the importance of the defendant's preference to avoid the insanity defense. The inquiry by the court under Whalem necessarily includes exploration of the defendant's choice and point of view. The line between mental responsibility and irresponsibility may be thin, and errors falling on both sides likely. The problem is especially treacherous where the defendant justifies his conduct as political or religious expression. 78 We know the danger of a Big Brother state that treats its critics as mentally ill. 79 When doubts about a defendant's mental condition remain after a full inquiry, the strength and reasons for the defendant's opposition to the defense become all the more important and may tip the balance. 80 This flexibility is consistent with Whalem. 32 The government argues that the Whalem inquiry should be replaced by a single question: Is the defendant's opposition to the defense voluntary and intelligent? 81 We believe this test, imported from Alford, would disserve the necessary assessment of mental responsibility, 82 and would in practice merely recreate the Whalem inquiry under new and less candid labels. Under Whalem, the trial judge considers the defendant's opposition to the insanity defense and the quality of his reasoning. 83 The court may also weigh the quality of the evidence supporting the defense, the reasonableness of the defendant's decision to raise the defense, and the Court's personal observations of the defendant. 84 33 The government's proposed investigation into the voluntariness and intelligence of the defendant's decision by necessity bootlegs each of these considerations into the court's analysis. The proposed inquiry clearly extends beyond mere competence to stand trial. Such competence involves only minimal ability to understand the proceedings and assist defense counsel. 85 The proposed voluntariness criterion mandates assessment of the defendant's ability to decide how to plead, that is, his capacity to decide free from coercion from without or from within. In a real sense, a defendant lacking mental responsibility cannot voluntarily waive the insanity defense. 86 The voluntariness portion of the government's proposal thus inevitably turns to the strength of the possible insanity defense and raises the matters covered in a Whalem inquiry. 87 The court must determine whether the defendant was free from delusion or psychosis in rejecting the defense. 88 34 Similarly, the proposed intelligence criterion introduces Whalem concerns because intelligence must involve more than evidence that a reasonable defendant would decline the defense. The stigma and risk of confinement associated with a successful insanity defense 89 provide grounds for always finding opposition to the defense intelligent. An intelligent decision in this context must reflect the quality of the defendant's own reasoning and the circumstances under which the plea decision is made. Thus, the intelligence of the defendant's choice can be determined only by an inquiry into the merits of his choice precisely the Whalem examination. Such an inquiry considers the risks of both improperly assigning criminal responsibility and unwisely imposing the insanity defense against the individual's wishes. 35 Thus, in all likelihood, the approach recommended by the government involves merely a minor and perhaps misleading change in symbolic emphasis. By focusing attention on the quality of the defendant's pleading decision, the government proposal tends to obscure society's obligation to determine blame-worthiness before imposing sanctions. Without hiding this obligation, a specific inquiry into the quality of a defendant's decision to waive the insanity defense is permitted and encouraged under Whalem. The trial court has authority to order a report on a defendant's competency to stand trial 90 and on his mental responsibility at the time of the alleged offense. 91 So too may the court discharge its responsibility by pursuing specific expert evaluation of the quality of the defendant's decision to oppose the insanity defense. We have not found Whalem and its progeny to stifle or distort the necessary inquiry; indeed, unlike the government's proposal, Whalem permits candid assessment of relevant factors.