Opinion ID: 1129010
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Petitioner's Statements to Court-Appointed Psychiatrists

Text: At the sanity trial court-appointed psychiatrists testified concerning incriminating statements by petitioner to them. The Solano County Superior Court stated that, since the right to counsel at interviews by court-appointed psychiatrists was not established until In re Spencer, 63 Cal.2d 400 [46 Cal. Rptr. 753, 406 P.2d 33], ( In re Cowans, 2 Cal.3d 733, 737 [87 Cal. Rptr. 499, 470 P.2d 635]), petitioner could now object to the receipt of the statements and that the admission of the statements was improper (evidently under Spencer ). However, the court overlooked that Spencer was based on Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 [12 L.Ed.2d 246, 84 S.Ct. 1199], and Massiah may not serve as the basis for collateral attack upon judgments which have become final before the date upon which the United States Supreme Court rendered that decision [May 18, 1964].... ( In re Spencer, supra, at p. 404, quoting from In re Lopez, 62 Cal.2d 368, 372 [42 Cal. Rptr. 188, 398 P.2d 380].) A fortiori Spencer does not apply to petitioner's case which became final in 1949. [8]