Bipolar Today

---

On Thursday the 18th, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against Omar R. Santiago Miranda. He had argued that, because of a combination of drug use, coercion by is family and bipolar disorder, his admission of guilt was not actually voluntary. However, the Court of Appeals ruled that Santiago’s guilty plea should still stand. Depending on how this ruling was worded, it might have set the precedent that admissions of guilt during manic episodes are binding. However, the ruling doesn’t come to this conclusion.

The precedent that would have affected bipolar defendants was if the court had ruled that Santiago had actually been under the influence of bipolar mania, but his plea was still admissible. This would have had the negative effect that people with bipolar disorder may wave their Fifth Amendment rights while manic, when they should not be considered to be acting voluntarily.

Fortunately, the decision avoids setting this precedent, because the ruling casts doubt on whether or not Santiago had bipolar disorder at all. The decision says “that Santiago, detained since October 7, 2005, had never before alleged having bipolar disorder.” In other words, because the question at issue was whether or not Santiago was bipolar at all, the court does not create the dangerous precedent of both accepting that Santiago is bipolar and accepting a guilty plea influenced by the disorder.

Related posts:

1. Ruling Could Extend Benefit Parity
2. Guilty Pleas in Florida Medicare Fraud
3. Indiana Supreme Court: Societal Protection Not Grounds For Guilty Verdict
4. Mental Illness in California Prisons
5. AstraZeneca’s Suit to Stall Generic Versions of Quetiapine (Seroquel) Dismissed