Clark v. Arizona: diminishing the right of mentally ill individuals to a full and fair defense.
In Clark v. Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court was faced with two main questions: Does Arizona's insanity defense statute, with its abridged M'Naughten standard, violate the Fourteenth Amendment? And does Arizona case law, with its complete prohibition on the use of mental disease or defect evidence to combat required mens rea elements of a crime, violate due process? In a six-three decision, the Court answered both of these questions in the negative.
Wortzel
Hal
H
VISN19 MIRECC, Denver Veterans Medical Center, Denver, CO, USA. hal.wortzel@uchsc.edu
Metzner
Jeffrey
J
D000293:Adolescent; D001130:Arizona; D003416:Criminal Law / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005104:Expert Testimony / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006708:Homicide / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000523:psychology; D006806:Human Rights / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D007298:Insanity Defense; D008297:Male; D028642:Persons with Psychiatric Disorders / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D000091402:Prohibitins; D012563:Schizophrenia, Paranoid / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000523:psychology; D035521:Supreme Court Decisions; D014481:United States