Resource Library

Topics

Filters

Resource Library

New to the Resource Library?

Learn how to navigate, search, and use our resources effectively.

How to use the Library

Shahzade v. Gregory

The court permitted the use of repressed memory evidence of alleged childhood sexual abuse, finding it met the standards for expert testimony.

repressed memorychildhood sexual abuseRule 702Daubert standardssexual abusememory evidencealleged abuse
(1996)

Doe v. Maskell

The court ruled that repressed memories are like ordinary forgetting and do not extend the time limit for filing civil claims. This bars lawsuits based on recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse.

(1996)

State v. Quattrocchi

The court mandated a reliability hearing before allowing scientific evidence about repressed memories or flashbacks. This was due to concerns that therapy or suggestion could distort or implant memories.

(1996)

Herndon v. Whitworth

The court ruled that a prisoner receiving the wrong medication and delayed care was negligence, not deliberate indifference. This meant it did not violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

cruel and unusual punishmentdeliberate indifferencenegligencemedical malpracticeprison healthcaredelayed medical carewrong medication
(1995)

Woods v. Edwards

The 5th Circuit ruled that claims of unsanitary confinement and constant sleep deprivation are sufficient for an 8th Amendment case, recognizing sleep as a basic human need.

unsanitary confinementsleep deprivationdisruptions8th Amendmentbasic needssleep
(1995)

Madrid v Gomez

The court ruled Pelican Bay State Prison conditions violated the 8th Amendment due to excessive force and inadequate care. Placing mentally ill inmates in solitary confinement was likened to depriving an asthmatic of air.

Pelican Bay State Prison8th Amendmentexcessive forceinadequate carementally ill inmatessolitary confinement prison conditionmental healthprisoner rightscruel and unusual punishment
(1995)

Borawick v. Shay

The court ruled that memories recalled after hypnosis are not automatically allowed. It found the plaintiff's recovered abuse memories too unreliable for use in court.

hypnosisrecovered memoriesunreliable memoriesabuse memoriesadmissibility
(1995)

Isely v. Capuchin Province

The court ruled that expert testimony on PTSD and repressed memory is admissible if reliable. However, experts cannot vouch for a victim's credibility or state that abuse definitively happened.

PTSDrepressed memoryDaubert standardsexpert testimonyreliabilityalleged abusecredibilitylegal standards
(1995)

Farmer v. Brennan

The Supreme Court ruled that prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment if they disregard a known, substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate. This clarified the standard for "deliberate indifference."

Eighth Amendmentdeliberate indifferenceprison officialsinmate safetysubstantial risk of serious harmcruel and unusual punishmentprison conditionsliability
(1994)

Messina v. Mazzeo

The court allowed excessive force and medical claims from a man who sued police and jail staff. He alleged excessive force during arrest, denial of kosher food, and deliberate indifference to methadone withdrawal.

policeindifferencekosherJudaismJewishreligionreligiousphysicianmethadone
(1994)

State v. Michaels

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that coercive child interviews can distort memories, requiring a pretrial hearing. The State must clearly prove the testimony's reliability.

New Jersey Supreme Courtcoercive interviewssuggestive interviewschildren's memoriespretrial hearingreliable testimonychild witnessmemory distortion
(1994)

Helling v. McKinney

The Supreme Court ruled that prison conditions posing unreasonable future health risks, like secondhand smoke exposure, violate the Eighth Amendment if officials are deliberately indifferent.

Eighth Amendmentprison conditionshealth risksdeliberate indifferencecruel and unusual punishmentinmate rights
(1993)

Johnson v. Texas

The Supreme Court affirmed Dorsie Lee Johnson's death sentence. It held that considering a defendant's future dangerousness allows juries to adequately consider a defendant's youth.

juvenile sentencingfuture dangerousnessmitigating factors of youth
(1993)

Godinez v. Moran

The Supreme Court ruled that the same competency standard applies to pleading guilty, waiving counsel, and standing trial. A higher standard is not required, but waivers must be knowing and voluntary.

(1993)

State v. Provost

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that psychiatric testimony on intent is inadmissible. Expert evidence on intoxication or mental illness cannot be used to negate criminal intent.

psychiatric testimonymens reaexpert evidenceaddictionintoxication
(1992)