If a Massachusetts court suspects that a defendant lacks the competency needed to stand trial or suffers from a mental illness that may negate his legal responsibility for an alleged crime, an evaluation will be ordered pursuant to M.G.L. c. 123, Section 15a.
After the “15a evaluation” is ordered, a forensic psychologist will meet with the defendant to assess his mental status and/or psychiatric problems.
Before the psychologist begins evaluating the defendant, she must give him “the Lamb” warning. This is a warning that statements made to the psychologist are not privileged and that any statement–excluding confessions or admissions of guilt–may be admissible at trial per M.G.L. c. 233, Section 20B(b). That statute states,
If a judge finds that the patient, after having been informed that the communications would not be privileged, has made communications to a psychotherapist in the course of a psychiatric examination ordered by the court, provided that such communications shall be admissible only on issues involving the patient’s mental or emotional condition but not as a confession or admission of guilt.
The Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that “inculpatory” statements made during the evaluation are also inadmissible at trial.
In the trial of an indictment or complaint for any crime, no statement made by a defendant therein subjected to psychiatric examination pursuant to [G. L. c. 123, §§ 15 or 16,] for the purposes of such examination or treatment shall be admissible in evidence against him on any issue other than that of his mental condition, nor shall it be admissible in evidence against him on that issue if such statement constitutes a confession of guilt of the crime charged. This excludes from evidence inculpatory statements constituting admissions short of a full acknowledgment of guilt, as well as evidence discovered as ‘fruits’ of the defendant’s compelled statements, and prevents the possible use of his involuntary statements made in the course of the examination for purpose of impeachment”
Seng v. Commonwealth, 445 Mass. 536 (2005)
For more on forensic evaluations, see my posts Competency to Stand Trial: Court-Ordered Evaluations and Lack of Criminal Responsibility [the Insanity Defense] in Massachusetts.