What is Mental Instability in the Courtroom?
Mental instability is a legal term of art that refers to a severe level of mental disturbance. It implies a lack of judgment that can nonetheless form the basis of a legal action known as an insanity defense (also referred to as a mental impairment or mental incapacity defense). While an insanity defense is almost always a criminal defense, it has many civil applications. In civil cases, those proving an inability to contract may "avoid" a contract by arguing mental instability at the point of entering into the contract. The law does not allow schizophrenics, dissociative identity disorder victims, those suffering from the extremes of bipolar disorder, those confused by a state of shock , or those suffering any substantial temporary cognitive malady to transport or transfer their confusion and/or altered state of mind to an otherwise enforceable legal contract (i.e., contracts entered into under the presence of rational thought and/or capacity to understand a legal contract). As such, courts may nullify executed transfer documents if the specific requirements of "mental instability" are met, transferred property words sealed back in an estate and/or converted to its former owners. Mental instability also plays a significant role in courts when minor children are applied the classification. Courts recognize mental instability as an obstacle to custody decisions, and as a requirement of every custodial parent.
Mental Instability Evidence Collection
Establishing mental instability in court often requires a multifaceted approach that draws from a variety of sources and types of evidence, ranging from medical documentation to witness accounts. Understanding what is available to prove mental instability is imperative when trying to build a compelling case.
The first type of evidence that can be used to prove mental instability in court is medical evidence. This mainly includes mental health records. If the individual in question is currently under mental health care, records from therapists, psychologists and psychiatrists can indicate a stability of mind or lack thereof. If there is evidence of mental health treatment currently or in the recent past, this will go a long way in proving mental instability, as a history of seeking treatment means the individual is likely aware that their state of mind is unstable.
However, if you are trying to demonstrate that someone who has already been a long-term patient under treatment is momentarily mentally unstable, a more complex strategy is required. To close that gap between treatment and evidence necessary to take action, it may be important to look beyond medical records directly and, instead, rely on the testimonies of mental health professionals. These testimonials can help prove the emotional state of the individual at the time of the incident, which is paramount in proving mental instability. General behavior that is out of sorts with previous records can be a compelling case for proving mental instability.
Witnesses may also provide observational evidence of mental instability. When family members and friends are interviewed about the individual who’s mental stability is in question, they can provide key insights into the individual’s record of behaviors, habits and mental state. It’s important to note that individuals who are familiar with the person in question may be less credible than experts, simply because they do not have the same level of familiarity with various indicators of mental instability. For this reason, it’s often important to take testimonials from multiple witnesses to corroborate physical and behavioral status.
While all of these are effective methods for proving mental instability in question, keep in mind that the burden of proof is on you as a petitioner. This means providing a compelling case that can prove mental instability beyond a sober doubt, especially if the individual actively disputes claims of poor mental health.
Expert Witnesses in Mental Health Cases
Expert Witnesses in the Courtroom
The role of an expert witness in a trial over mental instability cannot be overstated. This type of witness is critical specifically because most jurors will not have the appropriate background to understand fully the complexities of mental health issues and their relation to legal issues. Expert witnesses, then, help ensure that the jury makes its decision based on evidence and proper professional interpretation of the evidence, rather than on speculation.
An expert witness, in other words, helps bridge the gap between the science of mental health and the law, allowing the legal system to make well-informed decisions about the mental stability or instability of an incapacitated person.
This explains your attorney’s first call to a psychiatrist or psychologist. In the initial contact, the atty and the mental health professional will discuss the case, generally to help the attorney establish whether a particular expert has the knowledge and experience relevant to the case. In turn, the therapist may want to know the facts of the case as they relate to his or her specific area of expertise, as well as the particular questions he or she has been called to answer for the court.
It is important to remember that getting treatment from a mental health professional does not necessarily destroy your chance of receiving benefits from the court or of keeping the person who is serving as the guardian in place. It may actually be a good thing that you are taking steps to address the issues at hand. It shows, among other things, that you have not allowed those issues to completely take over your life.
Contrary to what many People think, there is not an automatic link between having a mental health issue and needing to appoint a guardian. Depending on the situation, just because someone is mentally unstable does not mean that he or she does not have sufficient understanding to manage his or her own affairs.
Finally, your attorney will need a copy of the mental health expert’s written report. In this report, special attention is paid to the doctor’s credentials, but the report also explains specific things that the expert found based on his or her conversation with you or the person to whom you are guardian. The report may also specify a recommendation for protective services, if the doctor thinks they are appropriate. The report will also consider the alternatives available and determine whether the guardianship is the least restrictive way possible to meet the person’s needs.
If the case goes to trial, expert witnesses will appear in person to testify about the case.
Legal Standards for Mental Capacity
The courts will accept a range of complex evidence, including the testimony of a psychiatrist or psychologist about the defendant’s particular mental illness. The expert will be required to explain, in concise terms, how the defendant’s illness impacts on the defendant’s overall level of mental capacity. Many instances of mental illness will have precise definitions and descriptions that will provide the Court with a detailed framework upon which to assess the subject’s capacity.
The legal criteria for assessing a person’s mental capacity, as outlined in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, is divided into two parts: The individual lacks the capacity to make a decision if he or she is unable to understand the information relating to the decision; is unable to retain that information; is unable to use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision; or is unable to communicate his or her decision. In other words, if a person has a lack of capacity to understand information that has been conveyed to them, and has an impairment of the mind, and as a result of the impairment they are unable to make a decision for themselves, the Court can be satisfied they lack the relevant capacity. Lack of capacity must be considered in relation to a specific decision and it must be decided upon the balance of probabilities, meaning that it is more likely than not. It is not necessary to demonstrate a total lack of capacity; it is sufficient that at any time the defendant is unable to make that particular decision.
An example of this is found in the case of Re W, reported in [2002] 1 Family 139 where the question of "adequate understanding" was addressed as follows: "Where the information is very precise, so that almost no one would fail to appreciate its significance (for example in relation to a medical procedure) the threshold may be relatively low. At the other extreme, where the information is less precise and involves some reasoning, drawing of inferences, the placing of values upon risks and the like, then the threshold must be higher." An assessment of capacity should also take into consideration the person’s ability to communicate their decision. Where English is a second language, not being able to understand the relevant information could arise from language difficulties, rather than a lack of actual capacity.
The second legal test of mental capacity states that the Court must be satisfied that the individual suffers from one of the following: The presence of an impairment or disturbance of the mind or brain is not, in itself, sufficient to lack mental capacity. Therefore, in the case of a person suffering from a mental illness, the extent and type of impairment will be of importance. The impairment/difficulty caused by a mental illness must be sufficiently serious to affect the individual’s ability to make decisions for themselves. The impairment must have more than "minor or transitory" effects and "more than fleeting and changing effects", meaning that there must be an ongoing effect.
The Difficulties of Demonstrating Mental Instability
Evidence of mental instability can be difficult to come by in court because of privacy concerns and the related issues of consent and potential stigma. A person who is asked to submit to a psychological examination or produce mental health records will likely be protected by doctor-patient confidentiality, unless he or she consents to the release of these records. Given the sensitive nature of mental health records and the associated fears of stereotyping and stigmatization , many people are understandably hesitant to waive their doctor-patient confidentiality rights. This creates significant challenges for courts when deciding whether a parent should retain custody over his or her minor child.
Evidence that could prove mental instability may also not be admissible because it is the expert opinion of a qualified psychiatrist or psychologist. The fear that opinions might be unduly prejudicial is a concern that courts take seriously and is particularly applicable with respect to mental health experts. As a result, courts may be suspicious of expert opinions pertaining to mental health and refuse to admit them as evidence.
Case Examples of Mental Instability Precedents
There have been many cases in both civil and criminal contexts where the defense of mental instability has been successful in absolving a responsible party of blame as a result of their mental state at the time of an accident. In some rather infamous and tragic circumstances, claims of mental instability have resulted in acquittal of criminal charges and punishment. The first case is a tragic one to read about, but one of the most infamous cases involving a successful defense based on mental instability is that of Andrea Yates. In 2001, Yates drowned her five children, ages 6 months to 7 years, in the family bathtub. At her trial, Yates was found not guilty by reason of insanity. After suffering with severe depression and postpartum psychosis following each of the births of her children, and experiencing her father dying while she dealt with each of the subsequent losses of the babies, Yates experienced severe hallucinations and delusions, which were ultimately determined by the court to be out of the control of her own volition. While this was a horrific crime that shocked the world, these were ultimately the circumstances which led to Yates being ultimately absolved of responsibility for the murders that she committed. In a more common circumstance, in 2010, a man pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity in the case of a vehicular crash in which he rear-ended another motorist on the highway in Oregon. This crash resulted in the death of two passengers in the other motorist’s vehicle and the offense of manslaughter in the first degree, with a sentence of 90 months delivered to the mentally unstable man who did not have criminal intent to kill those people. In reviewing the man’s mental stability, the courts were able to conclude that he did not have the reasoning capacity to know that his actions would kill those passengers and therefore his sentencing was accordingly reduced.
Legal Guidance and Support Resources
Legal representation is highly important when attempting to demonstrate mental incapacity, insanity, or stability in legal terms. It is also of the utmost importance when arguing against such this need for proof in legal matters. Mental instability is often a key factor in difficult cases and these allegations can easily destroy reputations, ruin relationships, and cause losses of employment, potential employment, and even imprisonment in the worst of cases. Emotional trauma from inappropriate admissions and false accusations can be overwhelming as well. There are a multitude of sources available for those seeking financial help for the legal representation of any type of issue, particularly those dealing with mental issues . According to the Of Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) of the University of Southern California, individuals must be 18 years old to utilize services. Among these resources for assistance for legal representation and other legal issues involving mental instability are: The two organizations just mentioned offer legal representation at free or minimal cost based on their income. Individuals seeking legal help should think about enlisting the services of a professional who is certified to evaluate and treat mental disorders. By reaching out to sources of support, an individual accused of mental instability can avoid causing harm to themselves or others, as well as spare themselves many other problems often associated with false accusations and unwarranted admissions of guilt for diseases they do not have or may not even understand at the time.