Frendak v. United States
   HOME

TheInfoList



OR:

''Frendak v. United States'', 408 A.2d 364 (D.C. 1979) is a
landmark case Landmark court decisions, in present-day common law legal systems, establish precedents that determine a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially affect the interpretation of existing law. "Leading case" is commonly u ...
in which
District of Columbia Court of Appeals The District of Columbia Court of Appeals is the highest court of the District of Columbia, in the United States. Established in 1970, it is equivalent to a state supreme court, except that its authority is derived from the United States Congr ...
decided that a judge could not impose an
insanity defense The insanity defense, also known as the mental disorder defense, is an affirmative defense by excuse in a criminal case, arguing that the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to an episodic psychiatric disease at the time of the cr ...
over the
defendant In court proceedings, a defendant is a person or object who is the party either accused of committing a crime in criminal prosecution or against whom some type of civil relief is being sought in a civil case. Terminology varies from one jurisdic ...
's objections.


Circumstances

Paula Frendak shot a coworker. After four competency hearings, the defendant was adjudicated competent, although in the opinion of several
experts An expert is somebody who has a broad and deep understanding and competence in terms of knowledge, skill and experience through practice and education in a particular field. Informally, an expert is someone widely recognized as a reliable so ...
she was likely
insane Insanity, madness, lunacy, and craziness are behaviors performed by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity can be manifest as violations of societal norms, including a person or persons becoming a danger to themselves or to ...
when she committed the
crime In ordinary language, a crime is an unlawful act punishable by a State (polity), state or other authority. The term ''crime'' does not, in modern criminal law, have any simple and universally accepted definition,Farmer, Lindsay: "Crime, definit ...
. However, Frendak refused to use the insanity defense as she felt a hospital was worse than any prison. She
attempted suicide A suicide attempt is an attempt to die by suicide that results in survival. It may be referred to as a "failed" or "unsuccessful" suicide attempt, though these terms are discouraged by mental health professionals for implying that a suicide resu ...
, went on
hunger strike A hunger strike is a method of non-violent resistance in which participants fast as an act of political protest, or to provoke a feeling of guilt in others, usually with the objective to achieve a specific goal, such as a policy change. Most ...
s and refused medication to underscore her protests. However, she was forced by the court to plead insanity. Thus, in this case a competent defendant was not allowed to reject the use of the insanity defense.


Decision

On appeal the decision was reversed. The judge may not impose the insanity defense upon an unwilling defendant if an intelligent defendant voluntarily wishes to forgo the defense. The court said that a defendant may feel hospital is worse than prison, that the term of incarceration may be longer, that the stigma and legal consequences of a criminal or an insanity defenses are different. Using the
U.S. Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point o ...
decisions in '' North Carolina v. Alford'' and ''
Faretta v. California ''Faretta v. California'', 422 U.S. 806 (1975), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and Pro se legal representation in the United States, represent t ...
'', the court concluded that The court listed several disadvantages to choosing the insanity defense, including: #an insanity acquittal may increase the period of confinement over a prison sentence #better treatment may be received in a prison than a mental hospital #the defendant may want to avoid the stigma associated with a mental disorder #commitment may result in loss of other rights, such as a driver's license #the defendant may regard the crime as a political or religious act The court therefore limited any further competence inquiry to an evaluation of the defendant's specific competency to waive the insanity defense.


Significance

This decision examines the quality of the defendant's decision. If the defendant appears to be intelligently and voluntarily waiving the insanity defense, the trial court should not deny this. However, the trial court should look into whether the defendant has been properly informed of the effects of their decision as well as the alternatives available to them. Thus the nature of such an evaluation would be similar to a competency to stand trial evaluation. The Frendak rationale, that a judge may not impose an insanity defense over the objections of the defendant, has been used mostly in federal cases. Some states have endorsed less elaborate procedures. For example, if a judge rules that the waiver of the insanity defense is not voluntary and informed, yet nonetheless the defense is imposed over the defendant's objections, then a separate counsel must be appointed to argue issues pertaining to insanity issues, while the defendant's counsel presents the arguments the defendant desires. However, as of 2002, seventeen jurisdictions permitted an insanity defense to be entered over the objections of the defendant. Thus these jurisdictions are, in effect, saying that a defendant who has been found competent to stand trial is not competent to rationally select his trial plea. Therefore a separate competency to refuse the insanity defense would have to be held that is similar to an evaluation of the defendant's mental state at the time of the offense. Realistically, because of the Supreme Court's holding in '' Godinez v. Moran'', it is most likely that the court would hold that if a defendant is competent to stand trial, then he is also competent to waive the insanity defense, as the two competencies are equivalent. ''Godinez v. Moran'' was modified and refined by the Supreme Court decision in ''
Indiana v. Edwards ''Indiana v. Edwards'', 554 U.S. 164 (2008), was a Supreme Court of the United States, United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the standard for competency to stand trial was not linked to the standard for competency to repres ...
'' in 2008.


See also

*
List of criminal competencies List of criminal competencies is a listing of the various types of competencies relevant to the defendant in criminal law in the United States. In the U.S. the law is permeated with competency issues since a state may not subject an individual ...


Footnotes

{{Alford plea Mental health law in the United States 1979 in United States case law Self-representation case law Insanity-related case law