concluding defendants “do not possess the right to have counsel present during a psychiatric examination” because it could “limit the efficacy of the examination.”
How later courts described this case
- concluding defendants “do not possess the right to have counsel present during a psychiatric examination” because it could “limit the efficacy of the examination.”
- Rule 81(b)(2) is codified progeny of Chapman v. California harmless error analysis
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DUNCAN, Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I agree with the majority’s disposition of this case upon remand; however, I still maintain that Dr. Grigson’s testimony, which was obtained in violation of State statutes, was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
CLINTON, J., joins.