Lessard v. Schmidt

379 F. Supp. 1376, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7138
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DecidedAugust 15, 1974
DocketCiv. A. 71-C-602
StatusPublished
Cited by86 cases

This text of 379 F. Supp. 1376 (Lessard v. Schmidt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lessard v. Schmidt, 379 F. Supp. 1376, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7138 (E.D. Wis. 1974).

Opinion

ORDER OF JUDGMENT

The opinion in this case was released October 18, 1972, and appears at 349 F. Supp. 1078. Nine months later, this court ordered “that judgment be and hereby is entered in accordance with the Opinion heretofore entered.” Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. On January 14, 1974, the Supreme Court remanded the case, because the judgment did not meet the specificity requirements for injunctive orders of Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d).

Pursuant to remand, this court set a briefing schedule and heard arguments on plaintiffs’ proposed judgment order on May 9. The following order is hereby entered to provide the declaratory and injunctive relief to which the court in its original opinion held plaintiffs were entitled:

It is ordered that final judgment in favor of plaintiff Alberta Lessard, and the class she represents, and against defendants Wilbur J. Schmidt, as Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services; Leonard Ganser, as Director of the Wisconsin State Division of Mental Hygiene; Dr. George Currier, as Director of the Milwaukee County Mental Health Center; Bert W. Pyle, Jr., as Administrator of the Milwaukee County Mental Health Center; Dr. Kevin Kennedy, as a psychiatrist employed by the Milwaukee County Mental Health Center; Judge Christ T. Seraphim, as Judge for Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, and their officers, agents, employees, servants and their successors and those persons acting in active concert or participation with them, is hereby granted and ordered entered as the judgment in this action as follows:

CLASS ACTION

This action is properly maintained as a class action under Fed.R. Civ.P. 23(b)(2). The class represented by plaintiff Alberta Lessard includes all persons 18 years of age or older who are being held or will be held involuntarily pursuant to any emergency, temporary or permanent commitment provision of the Wisconsin involuntary commitment statute.

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

1. The Wisconsin civil commitment procedures contained in the State Mental Health Act, Chapter 51, Wisconsin Statutes (1971), are declared to be unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in the following respects:

Written and Oral Notice of Rights

A. Section 51.02(1), Wisconsin Statutes (1971), is declared invalid in that it fails to require that all persons undergoing mental commitment procedures under Section 51.01, Wisconsin Statutes (1971), be provided with a written and oral notice informing them of (1) the factual basis for their detention; (2) their right to a jury trial; (3) the standards upon which they may be detained; (4) the names of the examining physicians and all other persons who may testify in favor of their continued detention; and (5) a summary of the *1379 proposed testimony of those who may testify in favor of their commitment;

Omission of Written Notice

B. Section 51.02, Wisconsin Statutes (1971), is further declared invalid in that it authorizes the omission of the service of the required notice;

Probable Cause Hearing

C. Sections 51.04(1), (2) and (3), Wisconsin Statutes (1971), are declared invalid in that they permit detention of persons for periods in excess of 48 hours without a judicial hearing to determine whether or not probable cause exists to believe such persons are both mentally ill and dangerous to themselves or others, and in that they fail to require (1) that counsel be appointed sufficiently in advance of said hearing adequately to prepare a defense; (2) that the persons detained and members of their families be given notice of the probable cause hearing where with reasonable diligence the families can be located prior to the hearing; and (3) that the persons subject to the proceedings have the unwaivable right to be present and an opportunity to be heard at said probable cause hearing.

Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

D. Chapter 51, Wisconsin Statutes (1971), is declared invalid in that it fails to provide that persons involuntarily detained pursuant to its provision be informed of their due process right against self-incrimination.

Detention Pending Commitment Hearing

E. Sections 51.04(1), (2), (3) and 51.03, Wisconsin Statutes (1971), are declared invalid in that they permit the detention of those awaiting involuntary commitment proceedings for periods in excess of fourteen (14) days without a full hearing on the necessity for commitment.

Commitment Hearing

F. Sections 51.02(2) and 51.-02(4), Wisconsin Statutes (1971), are declared invalid in that they authorize a hearing procedure for the commitment of the allegedly mentally ill which (1) fails to guarantee to persons subject to the proceedings the right to be represented by adversary counsel and to be appointed said counsel if indigent; (2) fails to require the application of the rules of evidence including the hearsay rule; (3) permits the introduction of psychiatric and other expert evidence without the persons having been given the benefit of the privilege against self-incrimination; and (4) permits involuntary civil commitment without proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the persons are both mentally ill and dangerous.

Standards for Commitment

G. Sections 51.02(5) and 51.05, Wisconsin Statutes (1971), are hereby declared valid insofar as they require that prior to a judicial order for commitment there must be a finding beyond reasonable doubt that (a) the subjects of the hearing are mentally ill; (b) the subjects of the hearing are dangerous to themselves or others based at minimum upon a recent act, attempt or threat to do substantial harm; (c) all available less drastic alternatives to commitment to a mental hospital or institution have been investigated; and (d) all available less drastic alternatives to commitment to a mental hospital or institution are unsuitable.

2. It is hereby declared that the order adjudging the named plaintiff, Alberta Lessard, mentally ill and in need of commitment is unconstitutional and invalid.

3. It is hereby declared that the unnamed plaintiffs, all persons 18 years of age or older who are being held or will be held involuntarily pursuant to any emergency, temporary or permanent commitment procedure which does not *1380 comply with the declarations of paragraphs one and four of this Order are unconstitutionally held.

4. It is hereby declared that all persons who are or will become the subjects of a commitment proceeding pursuant to Chapter 51, Wisconsin Statutes (1971), are entitled to:

A.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Olson
2006 WI App 32 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 2006)
State v. Dennis H.
2002 WI 104 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2002)
Conservatorship of Margaret L.
107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 542 (California Court of Appeal, 2001)
Towne v. Hubbard
2000 OK 30 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2000)
State v. Curiel
597 N.W.2d 697 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1999)
State v. Kienitz
585 N.W.2d 609 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1998)
Moore v. Wyoming Medical Center
825 F. Supp. 1531 (D. Wyoming, 1993)
State Ex Rel. Sandra D. v. Getto
498 N.W.2d 892 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1993)
In re Seman
3 N. Mar. I. 57 (Sup. Ct. of the Comm. of the N. Mariana Islands, 1992)
Guardianship of R.S. v. Milwaukee County
470 N.W.2d 260 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1991)
J.R.R. v. State
427 N.W.2d 137 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1988)
K.N.K. v. Buhler
407 N.W.2d 281 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1987)
C.S. v. Racine County
404 N.W.2d 79 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1987)
Project Release v. Prevost
722 F.2d 960 (Second Circuit, 1983)
Project Release v. Prevost
722 F.2d 960 (First Circuit, 1983)
Joyner v. Helvenston
658 S.W.2d 99 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1983)
Luna v. Van Zandt
554 F. Supp. 68 (S.D. Texas, 1982)
In Re Baker
324 N.W.2d 91 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1982)
Benham v. Edwards
678 F.2d 511 (Fifth Circuit, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
379 F. Supp. 1376, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lessard-v-schmidt-wied-1974.