Truth in Sentencing - Implications of Estelle v Smith for Post-Conviction Processes in Federal Cases (From Proceedings of the 29th Annual Southern Conference on Corrections, P 93-101, 1984 - See NCJ-98537)

• NCJ Number: 98543
• Author(s): P R Anderson; C H Miller
• Date Published: 1984
• Length: 9 pages
• Publication Format: Document
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Estelle v. Smith, holding that the gravity of the decision at the sentencing phase requires fundamental constitutional guarantees, should also apply to the presentence interview, particularly regarding the right against self-incrimination and the right to counsel.

Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Estelle v. Smith focused on the rights accorded a defendant at a pretrial competency interview with a psychiatrist who subsequently testified on the substance of the interview at the defendant's sentencing hearing. The Court ruled that Smith's rights were violated in his not being allowed the assistance of counsel to decide whether to submit to the examination and also in his not being informed that the test results would be used in determining sentence severity in the event of a conviction. Just as Smith's statements in the psychiatric interview were used as factors in his sentencing, so do statements given by defendants to probation interviewers during the presentence investigation have a significant impact on whether and to what degree they will be deprived of their freedom. The presentence interview is also conducted in a custodial setting according to the language in Miranda v. Arizona. The impact of the defendant's responses in the presentence interview dictates the application of fifth amendment rights (right against self-incrimination) as well as the right to counsel assistance. Twenty-five notes are provided.