Case law: People v Tortorici
A proper definition of case law includes previous court and judge rulings that provide a legal precedent. Case law relies on recent decisions and judgements made by the judge’s prior cases and that influence the determination of future cases. Case law is also referred to as the common law and the case precedent. In criminal and the legal justice system, case law offers a common contextual background that fits in judicial proceedings of cases with similar facts.
People v Tortorici is a case determined by legal and criminal justice systems in the United States. Ralph Tortorici was born with Hypospadias, a congenital deformity leading to physical and mental illness. Diagnosed with a mental illness attributing to paranoid schizophrenia, Tortorici was deemed incompetent to stand trial, leading to a lengthy judicial process between the defendant’s lawyers and state prosecutors (Ewing, & McCann, 2006). The assessment and determination by two psychiatric examiners that Tortorici was not mentally ill required him to stand trial. At the Mid-Hudson Psychiatric Center, a forensic psychology evaluation at the hospital indicated that Tortorici was rational and can engage in logical speech.
Forensic psychologists working for the justice department deemed the mental and psychological state of Tortorici stable and satisfactory, with the individual capability to stand trial. On March 20, 1995, Tortorici attended court proceedings and stood the test, while the defence team argued on his innocence since the defendant was insane at the time of his crimes. The defence team and through a forensic psychologist, Dr Lawrence Siegel, found Tortorici incapable of rational and formal participation for court proceedings (Murrie, & Zelle, 2015). On February 16, 1996, the defence team for Tortorici failed to indicate medical proof and evidence that the defendant was insane and mentally challenged. The jury rejected convicted him of all charges. Ralph Tortorici’s was found guilty, after clinical and forensic psychology tests did not see aspects of insanity, and convicted him of all charges.
The lower courts that handled Tortorici case was the Court of Appeals in New York, which maintained that the defendant was fit to stand trial. The Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court found it necessary to convict Tortorici on his crimes, by rejecting the presence of idiocy, imbecility or insanity that could render the defendant not fit for trial.
Reasons for appealing to a higher court, the Supreme Court, was to offer guidance on the admissibility of evidence by Tortorici defence team that argued of mental and psychological challenges (Murrie, & Zelle, 2015). However, the appellate court relied on 1957 New York Court of Appeals decision on case law, People v. Smyth, the presiding judge, was to determine on the mental and psychological soundness of a defendant to stand trial.
In the Dusky v. the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1960 that the inability of a defendant to understand or comprehend court proceedings was sufficient grounds for stopping the trial. For workers in the legal system, legal concepts and precedents emanating from Supreme Court ruling on the admissibility of evidence purporting a defendant not fit for trial requires forensic psychological evaluations. To standardize court rulings in the United States, the Supreme Court in Dusky v. United States offers legal workers the mandate to maintain judicial decisions and tradition, by relying on expert medical and mental evaluations of defendants (Ewing, & McCann, 2006). Since 1860-1865 the English common law seeks to protect the rights of defendants and plaintiffs with proof of mental illness and paranoid schizophrenia such as Tortorici.