Advertise on podcast: The Clinical Gavel -Criminal Law Cases

In this episode, we examine Riggins v. Nevada (1992), a landmark Supreme Court case addressing whether the state can forcibly administer antipsychotic medication to a criminal defendant awaiting trial. The Court ruled that while forced medication is not categorically prohibited, the state must demonstrate it is medically appropriate and the least restrictive means of achieving competency for trial. The decision protects the defendant’s due process rights and the integrity of the adversarial process by ensuring a defendant can present a defense as themselves, not as a pharmacologically altered version shaped by the state.

A forensic psychology and criminal law podcast analyzing “roid rage,” anabolic steroid effects on the brain, and how courts evaluate mens rea (criminal intent), voluntary intoxication, and legal responsibility in violent crime cases. This episode breaks down the intersection of neuroscience, behavioral evidence, and legal standards, featuring high-profile cases like Oscar Pistorius and legal precedents such as People v. Hood and R v. Kingston to examine why steroid defenses often fail in court. Designed for audiences interested in true crime, white collar crime, legal analysis, and clinical psychology, this content targets people who like topics such as criminal defense strategy, expert witness testimony, mental state defenses, and the psychology of violent offenders.