As a doctor and a professional, Dr. Bauer cannot proceed as suggested in the scenario. The medical ethics and professional responsibilities that she is obligated to comply with would, necessitate that she, at least, inform the defense attorney of the extent of her thoughts and considerations in regards to her analysis of the case and her hiring of as a consultant for jury selection. Most importantly, however, is that her professional responsibilities should stop her from secretly acting in opposition to the defense attorney’s strategy and theory of the case without first informing him of her concerns.
If she were to follow this advice, she would have to choose among the issues which she examined, that she feels would require a comprehensive rethinking of the defense strategy up to that date. This would require that she, for instance, explain her misgivings that large sections of the juror pool dislike the client or the proposed client’s story. In addition, Dr. Bauer should inform the defense attorney that, under her experience and expertise, the attorney’s theory of the case, namely that the defendant was so abused by the victim that she could not take further abuse any longer, was unlikely to win. What Dr. Bauer needed to do was inform the defense attorney of her understanding that the alternative theory, namely, that the defendant had suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) was the more reasonable and believable explanation. Dr. Bauer should have taken these steps regardless of the other psychiatrist demeanor or opposition. Dr. Bauer has a duty to her client, who is the defense attorney, to supply any and all information which she deems essential to their decision-making.
Dr. Bauer, as mentioned, should inform the defense attorney about her thoughts on the defendant’s development of PTSD. Not only is that information vital to how the defense attorney prepares his case but also it is a legitimate diagnosis that can and should be used in the preparation of the recovery framework for the client. In other words, Dr. Bauer has a duty to alert the people tasked with watching over the defendant, whether in prison, work release or the normal freedom that most of us enjoy, of what her ideas are on the mental health of the patient and the patient’s curability (LaFave, 2000). In this way, Dr. Bauer is acting more as a medical professional rather than hired hand for jury selection.
Perhaps the most important, action that Dr. Bauer will need to make a decision about is whether or not to initiate the “poison pill” strategy which, in essence, works to bring 12 angry men and women together to decide the fate of one of their fellow citizens in such a way that they will disagree early and often and eventually decide that a unanimous vote is impossible. First, such a strategy is not guaranteed. and could lead to confusion. That is to say, just because you wish or want a mistrial does not mean that it will actually happen. There is too much risk involved. Second, making such as choice exceed the doctor’s authorities and responsibilities in the case. In other words, Dr. Bauer was hired for a specific and temporary duty. Deciding on her own volition to change a fundamental aspect of the case without informing the defense attorney and, more importantly, the client is ethically questionable and could be grounds for a malpractice suit. Lastly, initiating a poison pill strategy most likely violates the defendant right to a fair trial. One of the meanings of a fair trial is that is the effective assistance of counsel. Effective assistance of counsel refers to the idea that the defense attorney used his expertise of the law and the facts of the case to the best of their ability (Kaci, 1998). However, unilaterally initiating the poison pill strategy necessarily shows that the defense attorney was not so well informed in that he was unable or unwilling to appropriately command witnesses and assistants for the defense.
References
Kaci, J.H. (1998). Criminal Procedure. Incline Village, NV: Copperhouse Publishing Company.
LaFave, W.R. (2000). Criminal Law, 3rd ed. St. Paul, MN: West Group.
