PLEASE USE THE ATTACHED PAGES! — CroweS_M4_A2 ANDAU_FP6010_Landmark_Cases_by_Topic_C2 (You can also find other cases from the ones listed but do not use the same ones from before)
THERE IS A SAMPLE CASE REPORT BELOW ALSO – PLEASE FOLLOW
CANNOT BE MORE THAN 6 PAGES!!
Landmark Case Presentation
In this module present your research findings on the landmark cases related to competency to stand trial (CST) criminal responsibility the right to receive mental health treatment the right to refuse psychiatric treatment coercion to mental health treatment and civil commitment and treatment of sex offenders.
Create a case report for each selected case including the following headings:
Write the case reports in not more than a 6-page Microsoft Word document.
All written assignments and responses should follow APA rules for attributing sources.
You may refer to the following links for additional information:
A Sample Case Report
Title and Citation: Gilbert v. Homar 117 S. Ct. 1807 (1997).
Type of Action: Civil Suit for Violation of Due Process
Facts of the Case: Homar was employed as a police officer at East Stroudsburg University a state institution. He was arrested on August 26 at a friends house during a drug raid and charged with possession of marijuana possession with intent to deliver and criminal conspiracy to violate the controlled substance law a felony charge. He was suspended without pay the next day by the university. Although the charges were dropped by the state police on September 1 the university wished to pursue its own investigation. The university officials met with Homar on September 18 to hear his side of the story. On September 23 he was demoted to groundskeeper and was told he would receive back pay at the groundskeeper rate though he eventually received back pay at the police officer rate. The union president met with the university president Gilbert on September 24. The demotion was based in part on a confession by Homar given to the state police on the night of his arrest. Homar contended that he was denied due process since there was no hearing prior to his suspension without pay.
Contentions of the Parties: Homar contended that he was denied due process since he did not have a hearing prior to being suspended without pay. He used prior cases in which the Supreme Court had ruled that a tenured state employee must have a pretermination hearing. Thus a tenured state employee cannot be fired without due process. However as presented by Justice Scalia Homar had simply been suspended and not terminated. The issue of denying him his livelihood was only temporary during his suspension and should not have posed a hardship.
Issue: Can the state suspend a tenured employee without pay without hearing the employees side of the case?
Decision: The court ruled three issues that are to be considered. First is the respondents (Homars) interest and how it is affected by the officials decision. In this case Homar was denied pay during his suspension. The second consideration is the risk of an erroneous decision by the officials due to the procedures used to reach the decision and any safeguards in place to reverse an erroneous decision. Homar was granted a hearing with the university officials approximately three weeks after the suspension took effect. The third consideration by the court is the governments interest.
Reasoning: The court ruled that there was probable cause for university officials to believe Homar had violated the law due to his alleged confession in the police report. Thus they were justified in suspending Homar. The court ruled that the suspension was not final and that the deprivation of income was also only temporary pending a postsuspension hearing. Finally the state has an interest in immediately suspending public officials who occupy highly visible roles when they are charged with felony crimes.
Rule of Law: Due process must be viewed as procedures that take into account the circumstances of the situation for both parties involved. Here the state was able to delay the due process by immediately suspending Homar. However the suspension was viewed as temporary pending a prompt hearing (Homars due process) and the states interest in maintaining public trust in the university police force justified an immediate suspension. The court also ruled suspension with pay would essentially be a paid leave at taxpayer expense and is not constitutionally protected.