Stanley Johnson's mother told a superior court judge that she had quite enough from her son. She described Stanley as "loud and nasty" and unable to understand that she was not obligated to "take care of his wants and needs." She presented the court with her petition requesting the judge to hospitalize her son.
The only supporting documentation necessary for her to provide was a signed affidavit that Stanley was mentally ill. Mrs. Johnson complied, and the court reviewed her petition ex parte. The petition was filed pursuant to the Ervin Act and the judge issued a subpoena ordering Stanley to appear before the Commission on Mental Health for a mental examination and subsequent hearing on whether he should be committed. Stanley refused to appear.
There was no suggestion that prior activities involved consensual asphyxiation.
He requested an evidentiary hearing on his request to quash the subpoena. He argued that his mother's allegations were insufficient to establish probable cause that he was mentally ill. A hearing was held to determine whether Stanley was entitled to a hearing before the judge was allowed to issue a subpoena ordering a mental examination. The judge ruled that Stanley was not entitled to a probable cause hearing prior to the issuance of a subpoena that was a "minimal intrusion" on his right to privacy. Stanley's motion to quash was denied and the judge issued a second subpoena ordering his submission to the examination. Stanley complied by appearing at two subsequent appointments for an evaluation, but refused to answer questions. His attorney continued the appeal to a higher court, arguing that an evidentiary hearing was necessary to enable him to cross-examine his mother about the allegations in her petition. The American Civil Liberties Union supported him in his argument.
His mother's attorney argued that the petition itself supplied sufficient probable cause to justify the subpoena, and a speedy examination was in the public interest. The District of Columbia asserted that any intrusion into Stanley's constitutional rights was minimal and outweighed by the compelling public interest in a speedy resolution of the petition.
Holding: The judgment of contempt was vacated and the case remanded for a hearing on the motion to quash the subpoena. Individuals must be provided with the opportunity to challenge an order to submit to a psychiatric examination that issued as a result of a private, non-emergency petition. While the government has an interest and statutory obligation to promptly examine a person alleged to be mentally ill and dangerous, the Court pointed out that due process protections are immediately afforded to the subject of the state's petition. The government's interest, said the Court, lessens when the examination is requested in a private, non-emergency petition. The Court questioned the reasonableness of allowing the government to intrude upon constitutionally protected rights, with virtually no procedural safeguards, when the state has a lesser interest in the outcome. A compelled emergency hospitalization is a significant intrusion into the rights of a person who would otherwise be free. Stanley Johnson was entitled to a due process hearing, the scope of which could be determined by the trial judge.
Impact litigation always creates tension between lawyering and cause.
Professor Gould comments: Lawyers generally agree that the lawyering relationship should be one based upon 'client-centeredness". The lawyer should be guided by the client's goals at each step of the case and the client should enter into an informed decision-making process with the lawyer as the case moves through its procedural posture. Ultimately, it is the client who makes the final decision as to whether to continue the case, or accept a disposition. This theory of lawyering carefully preserves the concept of lawyer as counselor—ready to help the client to make informed decisions that take into account the probable or possible outcomes and consequences of each legal decision. The Johnson case confronts the issues of client-centeredness as well as impact litigation.
Impact litigation seeks to challenge the law so as to effect positive change on a targeted group, in this case the universe of people who might be the subject of a private, non-emergency petition for judicial hospitalization. Impact litigation always creates tension between lawyering for the cause, and lawyering for the individual client's goals, which are presumed to be the same, but may change over the course of the litigation. Most public interest lawyers have had the experience of representing clients for whom the "principle" was most important, and others for whom getting the desired disposition in the most expedient manner takes precedence.
We do know that this issue was previously targeted by Mr. Johnson's attorney and the ACLU in prior litigation that had been rendered moot. The dissenting judge expressed his concern with this issue when he cautioned the court to consider the interests of everyday people and their problems before reaching out to decide a major constitutional issue "because the son's attorney and amicus want us to decide that issue."
To what extent did the attorney and client weigh the advantages and disadvantages of continuing litigation? Mr. Johnson could have chosen not to oppose his mother's Motion to Withdraw Petition and Dismiss Appeal back in 1994 and perhaps arrive at a positive disposition. What is clear is that Mr. Johnson was ultimately victorious and the rights of persons subjected to private, non-emergency petitions for judicial hospitalization under the Ervin Act must now conform to constitutional standards.
