Accordingly, several Courts of Appeals have held that, under such circumstances, a defendant can be required to submit to a sanity examination conducted by the prosecution's psychiatrist.

Smith does not per se require a new trial merely because the district court sustained an objection to a question seeking to elicit Washington's address.

In short, the defendant in these circumstances effectively "waives" his right to object to a compelled examination.

The admission of tape recordings at trial is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.

Our decisions in this area reveal a clear preference for the admission of recordings notwithstanding some ambiguity or inaudibility, as long as the recordings are probative.

—known that: "The situation here does not differ markedly from other cases wherein this court and others, albeit usually without discussion, have upheld searches although the nexus between the items to be seized and the place to be searched rested not on direct observation, as in the normal search-and-seizure case, but on the type of crime, the nature of the missing …

—decided this past year, the court has done so by noting that the admissibility of evidence in federal court is a federal question.

—refused to apply state evidentiary standards to the admissibility of evidence obtained by electronic surveillance.

—defendant is estopped from claiming a violation of his fifth amendment rights where prosecution introduces psychiatric evidence regarding defendant's mental state, but not his guilt, to counter defendant's showing on his mental condition

[PDF] Cases

[CITATION] Law and psychiatry in the criminal justice system