Powell v. Texas

Background

A man in Texas was examined by Dr. Richard Coons and Dr. George Parker after his arrest to check his competency and sanity. Neither he nor his lawyer were told that the exams would address whether he might be dangerous in the future or that he had a right to remain silent. The doctors later testified at sentencing that he would be a continuing threat, the jury imposed the death penalty, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed that sentence.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the State could use psychiatric exam testimony about future dangerousness when the defendant and his lawyer were not warned beforehand. The Court relied on earlier decisions holding that a person must be told of the right to remain silent and that a lawyer must be notified before exams about future dangerousness. Because counsel was not informed and there was no basis to find the defendant had given up his right to counsel, the Court concluded the evidence was taken in violation of the right to a lawyer and reversed the Texas court’s judgment.

Real world impact

The ruling prevents courts from admitting psychiatric testimony about future dangerousness when neither the defendant nor defense counsel were warned about the scope and use of the exam. It makes clear trial judges and prosecutors must give notice to lawyers and defendants before using such exams at sentencing. The decision reverses the state court and sends a message about proper procedure in capital cases.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissenting Judge on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals argued that the federal decision in Satterwhite showed there was error in admitting the testimony, and he criticized the state court’s handling of the issue.