People v. McKinney, 24 N.Y.2d 474 (1969)

A psychiatric examination of a defendant by a prosecution-retained psychiatrist, conducted without notice to the defendant’s counsel or court permission, violates the defendant’s right to counsel and privilege against self-incrimination, rendering the psychiatrist’s testimony inadmissible.

Summary

McKinney was convicted of murdering his wife after pleading not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. The prosecution, without informing McKinney’s counsel or obtaining court approval, had him examined by a psychiatrist, Dr. Abrahamsen, who testified that McKinney was faking mental illness. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that Dr. Abrahamsen’s testimony was inadmissible because the examination violated McKinney’s right to counsel and privilege against self-incrimination. The court also found error in admitting testimony that McKinney had invoked his right to counsel when initially questioned.

Facts

Following the murder of his wife, McKinney was arrested and informed officers he would not speak without his lawyer present. He pled not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. While jailed and awaiting a court-ordered competency evaluation, the District Attorney arranged for Dr. Abrahamsen to examine McKinney’s sanity without notifying McKinney’s attorney or seeking court approval. Dr. Abrahamsen concluded McKinney was malingering and testified to this effect at trial. At trial, a police officer testified that McKinney asserted his right to counsel upon arrest.

Procedural History

McKinney was convicted of first-degree murder. The Appellate Division reversed the conviction, finding that Dr. Abrahamsen’s testimony was inadmissible and that the admission of testimony regarding McKinney’s invocation of his right to counsel was also erroneous. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a psychiatric examination of a defendant by a prosecution-retained psychiatrist, conducted without notice to the defendant’s counsel or court permission, violates the defendant’s right to counsel and privilege against self-incrimination.

2. Whether it is permissible to present evidence that the defendant invoked his right to counsel as evidence of guilt or to rebut an insanity defense.

Holding

1. Yes, because such an examination constitutes a secret interrogation that contravenes the defendant’s constitutional rights.

2. No, because using the defendant’s assertion of his constitutional right as evidence against him is impermissible.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that a criminal defendant has a right to counsel at every stage of the proceeding, especially during interrogation. Citing People v. Waterman, the court emphasized that any secret interrogation after indictment, without counsel, violates basic fairness. While acknowledging the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Baird, which allowed court-ordered psychiatric examinations outside the presence of counsel, the court distinguished the present case. The key difference was that Dr. Abrahamsen’s examination was conducted secretly, without court permission or notice to defense counsel. The court reasoned that this secrecy deprived the defendant of the opportunity to seek a protective order to prevent the disclosure of incriminating information. The court highlighted the inherent dangers of secret examinations, where probing questions, hypnosis, or drugs could be used to extract information without proper safeguards. The court further stated, “In the absence of any notice to counsel or of judicial supervision, a ‘medical examination’ may well develop into precisely the sort of ‘secret interrogation’ which this court decried and found objectionable in People v. Waterman.” Furthermore, the court found it was reversible error to admit testimony that McKinney invoked his right to counsel when questioned, as it created an inference of guilt. The court stated: “To sanction the surreptitious examination of such a defendant, or to allow his insistence upon his constitutional rights to be used against him, would seriously impair the value of those protections.”