Judge Reinquist Case Study

Ultimately, I would agree with the opinion of the majority as well as Judge Rehnquist. The first issue regarding the Fifth Amendment would be that the instance took place after indictment. During indictment, the defendant was notified of his rights and counsel had been appointed to him. Since he was informed of his rights and did not waive them, he is entitled to have them enforced through the pretrial process.
The exam conducted is to determine competency upon indictment of a charge that could lead to the death penalty. If this was an interview to determine competency, his attorney is not necessary. The reasoning is because his answers would and should not change since competency is not incriminating. Even if the attorney were notified, the result of the test would …show more content…
The first thing that would need to be addressed is the opportunity to notify his attorney. The attorney should be notified before conducting the exam or at least before any possible incriminating questioning. This allows the defendant to prepare for incriminating questions and reminded of his fifth amendment rights. The prosecution needed to inform the defendant that his responses are admissible in court and can be used against him. The attorney would have the opportunity to sit with him during the exam to advise him of any self-incriminating questions. If the conditions were met, the doctor would be allowed to testify against the defense about his potential danger or mental condition. Since the exam is meant to examine him beyond competency, his statements as an expert witness have a broader scope.
I firmly support the decision of the Supreme Court on the case of Estelle v Smith. The outcome of the decision would be severely changed if the attorney was informed about the examination. Therefore, the testimony of the doctor should not be considered, and the decision to retry the defendant would provide the most fair