Texas. Evidence supported the jury's finding that a depressed mother who murdered one son, and attempted to murder another, was not entitled to an insanity defense, held the Court of Appeals of Texas. The Court said that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support a finding that the defendant knew the difference between right and wrong. The Court so ruled even though two psychiatrists, the only experts to testify, stated that at the time of the offense she suffered from a severe mental illness and didn't know right from wrong. However, the experts conceded that a person affected by depression similar to the way in which the defendant was affected could still know right from wrong. Torres v .State, 976 S.W.2d 345.

Utah. The United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, upheld the Utah District Court's grant of summary judgment for a hospital sued by a civilly committed patient who had been subjected to the forcible administration of antipsychotic medications .The Court found no violation of his civil rights under the U.S. Constitution. It held that the patient was gravely disabled; that treatment with psychotropic drugs was in his medical best interests; that the hospital had provided him with procedural due process; and that he was not competent to make medical decisions on his own behalf. Jurasek v. Utah State Hospital, 158 F.3d 506.

Kansas. An inmate challenged the constitutionality of the prison's sex offender treatment program. The program required complete and written disclosure of his sexual history, including all uncharged sexual offenses and used penile plethysmograph testing. The United States District Court, District of Kansas, held that the program's history taking did violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. It also held that immunity protected the prisoner's incriminating program disclosures from being used against him in later criminal proceedings. But the Court found that the penile plethysmograph testing did not violate the prisoner's Fourth Amendment privacy rights. Lile v. McKune, 24 F. Supp. 2d 1152.

Virginia. The defendant was convicted of murder in the shooting death of her husband. But the Court of Appeals of Virginia held that the trial court erred when it refused to allow the defendant to introduce expert testimony that she was insane at the time of the commission of the offense unless she changed her plea to not guilty by reason of insanity. Prior to trial, the defendant did timely notify the state that she would put her sanity in issue and present psychiatric evidence in support of that defense, but had pleaded simply "not guilty" to the charge. Jones v. Commonwealth, 506 S.E. 2d 27.

North Carolina. The Court of Appeals of North Carolina upheld the trial court's decision to exclude evidence concerning whether the defendant had the psychological make-up to commit the crimes he was charged with, specifically, sex offenses against his two-year old niece. The defendant had sought to introduce expert testimony by a forensic psychologist to show that he had no mental illness or substance abuse problem, and that he was not likely to be a sex offender. State v. Wagoner, 506 S.E. 2d 738.

California. An administrative law judge denied permission to renew the involuntary medication of a prisoner solely on the ground that the prisoner had made no new threats since the involuntary medication was last approved. The Superior Court affirmed, but the Court of Appeals, First District, reversed. It held that there need be no showing of a new threat in order to renew the involuntary medication of a prisoner who was a danger to others as a result of a mental disorder. Dep't of Corr. v. Office of Adm. Hearings, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 473.

New York. A New York bar examination applicant brought an action against the N.Y. State Board of Law Examiners. She alleged that the board's failure to accommodate her learning disability during the examination violated, among other things, the Americans with Disabilities Act. She had unsuccessfully taken the examination five times since 1991. The District Court ruled for the applicant and required the Board to provide her with accommodations such as extended time to take the test. In affirming, the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, held that the applicant was "disabled" within the meaning of the ADA, in that she suffers from a disability that substantially limits her major life activity of reading and learning, and was therefore entitled to reasonable accommodation. Bartlett v. N.Y.S. Bd. of Law Examiners, 156 F.3d 321.

Pennsylvania. A defendant was convicted of various sex offenses, including deviate sexual intercourse and corruption of minors, and then was classified and sentenced as a sexually violent predator. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed, holding that the sexually violent predator law violated procedural due process, in that it required the offender to rebut a presumption "sexually violent predator" status and did not impose upon the prosecution the burden of persuasion by clear and convincing evidence. Commonwealth v. Halye, 719 A.2d 763.