United States v. Jerry Neale Albright

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that “a defendant’s right not to incriminate himself is not violated per se by requiring him, in an appropriate case, to submit to a mental examination”
• holding that a compelled examination of a defendant raising an insanity defense does not violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination so long as evidence derived from the examination is admitted only on the issue of insanity
• noting that the “defendant introduced the question of his sanity into the proceedings at a time when the only course available to afford the government, in carrying out society’s right to the truth, the opportunity to have another examination of [the] defendant was to recess the trial”
• introducing a verifying psychiatric examination is “perhaps ... the most trustworthy means of attempting to meet [the] burden” of proving the accused’s sanity
• affirming the district court’s judgment of conviction and concluding the district court did not violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights when the district court ordered him to undergo a psychiatric examination regarding the issue of insanity
• the examination determines not guilt but capacity to be guilty; the underlying purposes of the constitutional privilege are furthered by compelling an examination; and government necessity demands an examination

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).