Court Opinion

ID: 9720674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:38:46.963157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:20.489740
License: Public Domain

T. E. Brennan, J.
(dissenting). If we are to pronounce a rule of law here, and not merely voice a visceral reaction to the instant case, we ought to state the question as abstractly as possible:
Is the testimony of a psychiatrist offered in rebuttal of a defense of insanity inadmissible where the psychiatrist examined the defendant without the defendant having had the opportunity to consult with an attorney prior to the examination?
I say the answer should be no.
*243The psychiatric examination is not conducted for the purpose of obtaining the defendant’s confession.
A confession made to a psychiatrist would, be inadmissible to prove guilt.
The confession-sweating tactics which Miranda detailed have not been associated with medical examinations.
The doctor’s testimony as to his professional opinion on the question of sanity is based upon his observation and examination of the defendant.
The fact that a psychiatric or any medical examination of a defendant may involve dialogue between the doctor and the prisoner is no more significant under the Fifth Amendment than the fact that serving the prisoner his meals may involve some dialogue with the jailer.
The psychiatrist is not concerned with the truth of what the defendant says; he is concerned with the medical significance of what the defendant says. The doctor is not looking for admissions of fact but for perception of reality.
Of what value would the advice of counsel be? Would counsel tell the defendant to refuse to be examined? Could not the doctor examine the defendant anyway? Would a lawyer advise how the questions were to be answered so as best to convey the impression of insanity? If lawyers were competent to do so, psychiatrists would be incompetent to testify.
I would affirm.
Black, J., concurred in the result.
T. G. Kavanagh, J., did not sit in this case.