People v. Cerami, 30 N.Y.2d 245 (1972)
A criminal defendant has the right to have counsel present during psychiatric examinations conducted by the prosecution’s expert to ensure effective cross-examination regarding the defendant’s sanity.
Summary
Michael Cerami was convicted of first-degree manslaughter. His defense was insanity, but a prosecution psychiatrist examined him pre-trial without notifying his counsel. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that Cerami was entitled to have counsel present at the psychiatric examination to make the right of cross-examination more effective. The court reasoned that the pretrial psychiatric examination is a critical stage of the criminal prosecution. The failure to exclude the psychiatrist’s testimony due to the lack of notice to counsel regarding the first examination was prejudicial error, warranting a new trial.
Facts
Michael Cerami shot and killed Stanley Bohrer, his former supervisor, who had asked for Cerami’s resignation from his teaching position years earlier. Cerami claimed insanity, asserting he was a paranoid schizophrenic who believed Bohrer had wrongfully terminated him and spread rumors about him. The defense presented evidence of Cerami’s prior diagnoses of paranoid schizophrenia from multiple hospitals and a psychologist. The prosecution sought to rebut this defense with the testimony of its own psychiatric expert, Dr. Pollack, who had examined Cerami twice before trial.
Procedural History
Cerami was indicted for manslaughter. After a jury trial in the Monroe County Court, he was convicted. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted permission to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether a defendant’s conviction should be set aside because pretrial psychiatric examinations, conducted by the prosecution’s expert regarding the defense of insanity, occurred without notice to or the presence of defendant’s counsel.
Holding
Yes, because a defendant is entitled to counsel’s presence at the first psychiatric examination to ensure the effective right of cross-examination, and the failure to exclude the psychiatrist’s testimony due to a lack of notice to counsel was prejudicial error.
Court’s Reasoning
The court relied on Matter of Lee v. County Ct. of Erie County, which established that pretrial psychiatric examinations are a critical stage in a criminal prosecution, entitling the defendant to have counsel present to make more effective the basic right of cross-examination. The court reasoned that the prosecution’s notice of a psychiatric examination must include sufficient details (date, time, and place) to permit defense counsel to attend. The court found that the defense counsel was not given adequate notice regarding Dr. Pollack’s first examination of the defendant. The court rejected the argument that the defense waived the objection by waiting until the suppression hearing, as any prejudice to the prosecution could have been alleviated at that time. The court stated that any expert opinion based even in part upon an improper examination should be excluded. Quoting People v. Keough, the court emphasized that it is irrelevant that the psychiatrist may have properly acquired some part of the foundation for his expert opinion apart from the invalid examination.