Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is commonly used as a mitigating sentencing factor, although how successfully it is used varies. In cases involving the death penalty, use of a PTSD diagnosis as a sentencing mitigating factor has been considered in the postconviction appeals process. This article analyzes a decade of American federal appellate case law regarding postconviction claims of ineffective assistance of counsel by capital defendants in regard to investigating and litigating trauma and PTSD. We found a high tolerance by the courts for deficient investigating, ruling against the petitioner in 20 of 23 (87%) of identified cases. The article discusses how these situations might be avoided and explores the critical role of forensic psychiatrists and mitigation specialists in investigating and presenting trauma to the court.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.29158/JAAPL.210052-21 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!