New Courts on the Block: Specialized Criminal Courts for Veterans in the United States
| Author | Melissa Pratt |
| Position | J.D. candidate, University of La Verne College of Law, 2011; B.A., California Polytechnic State University, 2002 |
| Pages | 39-57 |
ARTICLE
NEW COURTS ON THE BLOCK:
SPECIALIZED CRIMINAL COURTS
FOR VETERANS IN THE UNITED STATES
By Melissa Pratt*
CITED: (2010) 15 Appeal 39-57
INTRODUCTION
“‘To deny the frequent connection between combat trauma and subsequent criminal be-
havior is to deny one of the direct societal costs of war and to discard another generation
of troubled heroes.’”
Over . million American military service members have been deployed to Iraq and
Afghanistan in support of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) since the start of combat
operations in . Approximately one third of those individuals have been deployed more
than once. With plans to withdraw all but , of the service members from Iraq by Au-
gust , the United States will face a massive inux of veterans returning from war. It has
been estimated that to percent of the . million Iraq and Afghanistan veterans
APPEAL VOLUME 15 w39
1. Deborah Sontag & Lizette Alvarez, “Across America, Deadly Echoes of Foreign Battles” N.Y. Times (13 January
2008), online: NYTimes.com (quoting Brockton
D. Hunter, criminal defense attorney) [“Deadly Echoes”].
2. VA Fact Sheet: Impact of Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, online: Veterans for Common Sense
tistics, online: Statistical Information Analysis Division of the Dept. of Defense
3. Responding to the Needs of Justice-Involved Combat Veterans with Service-Related Trauma and Mental
Health Conditions, online: Center for Mental Health Services National GAINS Center
ter.samhsa.gov/pdfs/veterans/CVTJS_Report.pdf> at 4 [GAINS Report].
4. Julian E. Barnes & Greg Miller, “Obama Orders More Troops to Afghanistan” The Los Angeles Times (18 Febru-
ary 2009), online: latimes.com
2009feb18,0,1590275.story> [“More Troops”].
* J.D. candidate, University of La Verne College of Law, 2011; B.A., California Polytechnic State University, 2002.
The author is also a combat veteran, and served two tours in Iraq, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in
2004 and 2006. The author wishes to thank her friends, family, and husband for their undying love and sup-
port. She also wishes to thank Judge Wendy Lindley and the Orange County Veterans Court for their invaluable
assistance in researching this article.
(“GWOT veterans”) will “face serious mental-health injuries” such as Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). ese disorders can lead to higher
rates of drug and alcohol abuse, because many veterans will try to “self-medicate” to help
deal with their problems. Higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse oen lead to additional
drug oences, the, and ultimately incarceration. As well, the New York Times reported
in January that there had been at least cases in which veterans of Iraq and
Afghanistan were charged with killings ranging from involuntary manslaughter to rst-
degree murder, since the return of the rst veterans from Afghanistan in . Combat
trauma and substance abuse played a part in many of the cases. However, these violent
crimes are just a small percentage of the larger estimated number of crimes that veterans
will commit.
At the same time, several studies have shown that veterans convicted of crimes have a much
lower recidivism rate than other criminals. A study by the New York Department of
Correctional Services indicates that “veterans … return to the [correctional] system at less
than percent of the rate at which similarly situated non-veterans return.” A re-
40 wAPPEAL VOLUME 15
5. Terri Tanielian & Lisa H. Jaycox, Invisible Wounds: Mental Health and Cognitive Care Needs of America’s Re-
turning Veterans, online: RAND Corporation at
2 [RAND Report]. The essential feature of PTSD “is the development of characteristic symptoms following ex-
posure to an extreme traumatic stressor involving direct personal experience of an event that involves actual or
threatened death or serious injury, or other threat to one’s physical integrity; or witnessing an event that in-
volves death, injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of another person; or learning about unexpected or vio-
lent death, serious harm, or threat of death or injury experienced by a family member or other close
associate.”American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed.
(Washington D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 2000) at 465 [Manual of Mental Disorders]. TBI “occurs
when a sudden trauma causes damage to the brain. TBI can result when the head suddenly and violently hits
an object, or when an object pierces the skull and enters brain tissue.”Traumatic Brain Injury: Hope Through
Research, online: National Institute of Neurological Disorders & Stroke
PTSD. In 2006, the New England Journal of Medicine conducted an anonymous study of 2,525 Army infantry
soldiers and found that “ofthose reporting loss of consciousness, 43.9% met criteria for post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD), as compared with 27.3% of those reporting altered mental status, 16.2% with other injuries,
and 9.1% with no injury. Charles Hoge et al., “Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in U.S. Soldiers Returning from
Iraq,” (2008) 358 New England J. Medicine 453, at 453.
6. Claudia Baker & Cessie Alfonso, “PTSD and Criminal Behavior” in “National Center for PTSD Fact Sheet 1”,
online: National Center for PTSD .
able-template=factsheet> [PTSD Fact Sheet].
7. P.T. Bean & C.K. Wilkinson, “Drug Taking, Crime and the Illicit Supply System” (1988) 83 British J. Addiction
533.
8. “Deadly Echoes”, supra note 1.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. e.g. One study was based on “personal interviews conducted through the 1997 Survey of Inmates in State and
Federal Correctional Facilities and the 1996 Survey of Inmates in Local Jails.” Christopher J. Mumola, “Veterans
in Prison or Jail”, online: U.S. Dept. of Justice at 14 [Veterans
in Prison]. However, the authors of the study noted that the accuracy of the report may suffer from sampling
errors, as well as non-sampling errors (for example, the study relied on inmates to provide their own personal
information which resulted in non-responses, different interpretations of the questions, and recall difficulties);
but see Dane Archer & Rosemary Gartner, “Violent Acts and Violent Times: A Comparative Approach to Post-
war Homicide Rates” (1976) 41 Am. Soc. Rev. 937 at 956: “Direct evidence of whether veterans are overrepre-
sented in the commission of homicide is difficult to obtain.”
12. Veterans’ Program Follow-Up July 1993, online: State of N.Y. Dept. of Correction Services
port from the Bureau of Justice Statistics concluded that, as a group, incarcerated veterans
were less likely to commit future crimes than incarcerated non-veterans.
Additionally, other recent studies have shown that veterans who have completed special-
ized treatment programs have an even lower recidivism rate, which suggests that veterans
would be optimal candidates for rehabilitation and decreased sentencing. Arguably, crim-
inal defendants who are also veterans may require, or benet from, dierential treatment
by the criminal justice system.
States are beginning to respond to the increasing numbers of GWOT veterans turning up
in their courtrooms. Judges, prosecutors, public defenders, US Department of Veterans
Aairs ocials, and volunteers are joining forces “to create courts with veterans-only case
proceedings, because they have seen a common thread” of PTSD, TBI, substance abuse, and
mental illness underlying the veterans’ crimes.
is article describes the creation of specialized courts for veterans accused of nonviolent
crimes. It argues that such courts are an ecient and appropriate way for the US criminal
justice system to streamline the anticipated inux of veterans who may nd themselves
facing incarceration, providing them with the chance to rebuild their lives.
I. MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM
ere is no foreseeable end to the United States’ involvement in the GWOT. Although plans
have been set in motion to reduce the force in Iraq, the number of U.S. troops in
Afghanistan is going to increase, and there is no indication of a complete withdrawal of
American forces from either country. Until the GWOT is over, the United States will con-
tinue to send men and women into a combat environment, and a percentage of these sol-
diers will continue to return with PTSD, TBI, or other mental health problems. Veterans
who have not received adequate treatment (and even some who have) will continue to nd
themselves in trouble with the law.
13. Veterans in Prison, supra note 11, at 7; see also “U.S. Sentencing Commission on Recidivism and the First Of-
fender”, online: United States Sentencing Commission .
[Marek].
fender.pdf> at 23 [First Offender]: (indicating that offenders with prior military service make up a higher
proportion of federal offenders with little or no prior criminal history than of federal offenders with lengthier
criminal records).
14. The first veterans court in Buffalo, New York reports that of the more than 100 veterans who have passed
through its program, only two had to be returned to the traditional criminal court system because they could
not quit narcotics or criminal behavior. Nicholas Riccardi, “These Courts Give Wayward Veterans a Chance” Los
Angeles Times (10 March 2009), online: latimes.com
na-veteranscourt102009mar10,0,5067070.story?page=2>. A 2007 RAND Corp. study of the county mental
health court in Buffalo, New York, showed that only 14 percent of participants committed a crime after going
through the program. The Buffalo veterans court is modeled after its mental health and drug courts. The report
claims that the recidivism rate for the general population of inmates is 67 percent. RAND Report, supra note 5,
at 2. King County, Washington reports a recidivism rate of 16 percent for convicted veterans who have com-
pleted their prison time, compared to the current recidivism rate of over 50 percent for the general population.
Veterans’ Program Client Services, online: King County Dept. of Community & Human Services
15. Lynne Marek, “Courts for Veterans Spreading Across U.S.”, online: (2008) National L. J.
16. Ibid.
17. “More Troops”, supra note 4.
18. RAND Report, supra note 5 at 2.
APPEAL VOLUME 15 w41
A RAND Corporation study estimates that , GWOT veterans are currently suer-
ing from PTSD or depression, and about , may have experienced a Traumatic Brain
Injury during deployment. In an eort to identify soldiers who are at risk for, or who are
already suering from PTSD and other mental health disorders, the Department of Defense
(DoD) has enacted certain post-deployment protocols. e DoD requires that a Post-De-
ployment Health Assessment be administered to all service members at the end of de-
ployment. ree to six months later, the assessment is re-administered. In , during
a random-dial survey, the GAINS Center found that of those surveyed, from the time of
the initial assessment to the reassessment, positive screens for PTSD jumped percent for
those who served in the active Army (from to ) and percent for Army National
Guard and Army Reserve members (from to ). Depression screens increased as
well, with Army National Guard and Army Reserve members reporting higher rates than
those who were active Army.It is estimated that only around percent of veterans who
need treatment for depression, PTSD, or TBI seek it, and only slightly more than half who
receive treatment get even “minimally adequate care.”
ere are no comprehensive statistics on how oen veterans get in trouble with the law, and
many will never become entangled with the legal system. But psychiatrists, law enforcement
ocials, and commentators agree that the traumas of combat can lead to addiction
andcriminality. According to the most recent data available on incarcerated veterans, ten
percent of federal and state prisoners were veterans in , before GWOT veterans began
returning in large numbers. At that time, veterans were not overrepresented in the jus-
tice system in comparison to their proportion in the general population. However, as
more veterans with PTSD, TBI, and other mental health disorders are returning from war,
the growing concern is that the underlying conditions which cause veterans to become in-
volved with the justice system are not being treated.ese conditions in turn cause more
veterans to become involved with the criminal justice system, ultimately leading to more
veterans ending up in prison.
e best predictor of justice system involvement for veterans comes from the National
Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study (NVVRS). Based on interviews conducted be-
tween and , the NVVRS found that among male combat veterans of Vietnam
with current PTSD (about of all male combat veterans of Vietnam), nearly half had
been arrested one or more times. At the time of the study, this represented approximately
19. Ibid. at 2.
20. Dept. of Defense Instruction 6490.03 [11 August 2006], online:
21. Ibid.
22. RAND Report, supra note 5 at 5.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid. at 2.
25. Margaret E. Noonan & Christopher J. Mumola, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: Veterans in State
and Federal Prison (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2007) at 1.
26. Ibid.
27. GAINS Report, supra note 3 at 1.
28. Richard A. Kulka et al., Trauma and the Vietnam War Generation: Report of Findings from the National Viet-
nam Veterans Readjustment Study (New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1990) at xxiii.
29. Ibid. at 186.
42 wAPPEAL VOLUME 15
, people. If GWOT veterans with PTSD follow the same percentage of justice-in-
volvement as Vietnam veterans, approximately , of the current . million veterans
will nd themselves facing criminal charges.
Based on the serious problems facing GWOT veterans, and the underlying reason why
they are facing these problems – their traumatic combat experiences – the United States
must recognize these problems and nd a solution. American society places a relatively
high value on military service. Veterans receive special consideration in a variety of con-
texts, including employment,education, naturalization, voting rights, medical care,
housing loans, and small business loans.at special consideration is given to veterans
in large measure as recognition for the service they provided to their country. One current
consequence of that service is that large numbers of GWOT veterans will suer from PTSD,
TBI, or other mental health disorders. Many will face substantial obstacles in obtaining
healthcare. Others will face diculties obtaining service-connected compensation,
while some will be denied compensation and healthcare altogether. Self-medication and
drug and alcohol abuse can exacerbate PTSD symptoms. Additionally, the post-deploy-
ment transition is oen complicated by adaptive behaviors developed during combat to
promote survival. Behaviours that are learned in order to survive in a combat zone can
cause diculties during the transition back to civilian life. Undoubtedly, this is a recipe
for disaster.
30. Ibid. at 60, 186.
32. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 3001-3036 (2009).
33. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1439-1440 (2009).
34. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-37 (West 2009) (restoring the right of suffrage to persons who lost such right by rea-
son of criminal conviction, but who thereafter honorably served in the military during World War I or World
War II).
35. See 38 U.S.C. §§1701-1774 (2009).
36. See 38 U.S.C. §§3701-3775 (2009).
37. See 38 U.S.C. §§3117(b), 3701-3775; 15 U.S.C. § 633(b)(1) (2009).
38. The backlog of Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) compensation claims has been growing since the mid-
1990s, but over the past few years, the disability claims backlog has exploded. At the beginning of January
2004, the backlog was around 470,000, and by the end of March 2009, the backlog had reached 697,000.
2009 Monday Morning Workload Reports, online: U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs
ports/mmwr/>.
39. Without an approved service-connected disability rating from the VBA, veterans will not be able to receive cer-
tain benefits that come with a service-connected disability. More importantly, a veteran who does not have a
service-connected rating will have a lower priority for receiving care at Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care facili-
ties. VA Health Care Eligibility & Enrollment, online: U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs
40. As of March 2008, veterans who do not currently have a service-connected disability, applied for care after Jan-
uary 16, 2003, and have a certain level of income for the previous year, can no longer enroll for care from the
VA. Ibid.
41. A study conducted ten years after the end of the Vietnam War found that approximately 75 percent of Viet-
nam veterans with PTSD also “had a lifetime alcohol abuse or dependence disorder.” Kulka, supra note 28 at
124.
42. GAINS Report, supra note 3 at 5.
43. “Hypervigilance, aggressive driving, carrying weapons at all times, and command and control interactions, all of
which may be beneficial in theater, can result in negative and potentially criminal behavior back home.” Ibid.
APPEAL VOLUME 15 w43
II. ATTEMPTS TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM
Several dierent attempts have been made to address the increasing numbers of veterans
suering from PTSD, or other mental health concerns, who nd themselves in trouble
with the law as a result of their conditions. Some state and federal courts have taken vet-
eran status into account during the sentencing stage, as a mitigating factor. Other states
have allowed PTSD to be used as a diminished capacity defense. Both houses of the US
Congress have proposed bills that would create or sustain funding for programs that assist
veterans involved with the criminal justice system. e most recent attempt, and the focus
of this article, is the creation of courts exclusively for veterans.
Regardless of the specic approach adopted, this article contends that courts should al-
ways take a defendant’s veteran status and underlying conditions into account. Many courts
do not inquire into an individual’s veteran status until the sentencing stage, if at all. How-
ever, this inquiry should be made at the beginning of any criminal proceeding. If a defen-
dant is found to be a combat veteran, additional inquiries should be made into whether the
veteran suers from a mental-health condition or substance-abuse problem as a result of
their combat experience. If the veteran is found to have one of these conditions, and it can
be demonstrated that the condition caused the veteran to commit the crime he or she is ac-
cused of, the state should oer the veteran probation and treatment for his or her condi-
tion. is approach may not be suitable for the most serious crimes, such as murder, but
if the veteran is eligible for probation under the applicable state or federal statute, proba-
tion and treatment should be oered. is would avoid the apparent costs with creating a
new court, by simply modifying the existing procedures.
A. Veteran Status as a Mitigating Factor During the Sentencing Stage
One way to accommodate the special needs of veterans accused of criminal oenses might
be to raise a defendant’s veteran status during the trial, to show “good character.” Under fed-
eral and most state laws, a defendant’s prior bad acts, such as previous convictions, are gen-
erally excluded from evidence at trial. However, evidence of a defendant’s good character
is almost always admissible. e theory behind excluding prior bad acts is that a jury is
likely to improperly conclude that an individual who has committed a crime in the past is
more likely to have committed the oense of which he or she is presently accused. is
could lead the jury to convict the defendant for reasons other than whether the individual
committed the oense in question. However, a defendant is permitted to introduce evi-
dence of good character in an attempt to establish that he or she did not commit the crime
in question. e prosecutor can respond by introducing evidence of bad character, but
44. See Carissa Byrne Hessick, “Why Are Only Bad Acts Good Sentencing Factors?” (2008) B.U.L. Rev. 88 at 1109
[Hessick].
45. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
46. Fed. R. Evid. 404(a).
47. John W. Strong et al., McCormick on Evidence, vol. 1, 5th ed. (St. Paul: West Group, 1999) § 191.
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid.
44 wAPPEAL VOLUME 15
only to rebut the evidence of good character. is bias in favour of good character evi-
dence at trial has a long history and is well settled.
During the sentencing phase of a trial (post-conviction), the opposite bias exists: prior con-
victions are considered relevant to determine the proper punishment. e issue of what
role prior good acts should play at this stage is much less certain. Not many jurisdictions
explicitly recognize prior good acts as a mitigating sentencing factor, and even fewer rec-
ognize military service as one of these factors. Occasionally, trial judges have reduced a de-
fendant’s sentence on the basis of prior good actions that are unrelated to the conviction,
such as military service or charitable work. But these decisions have met resistance from
the US Sentencing Commission and federal appellate courts, and various scholars have ex-
pressed the view that prior good acts should not be considered at sentencing.
Federal law on prior good acts for mitigation is inconsistent. Before the Federal Sentenc-
ing Guidelines were enacted, oentimes a defendant’s prior good acts were raised and con-
sidered at sentencing. However, when Congress formed the US Sentencing Commission
to develop the Guidelines, it did not mention an oender’s prior good works as a sentenc-
ing factor. e Commission was le to decide whether various factors “have any relevance
to … an appropriate sentence,” and the Commission was directed by Congress to “take
them into account only to the extent that they do have relevance.” e original Sentenc-
ing Guidelines classied many of the factors as not normally relevant in determining a de-
fendant’s level of oense but did not mention a defendant’s prior good works.
In United States v. Pipich (“Pipich”), the district court gave a defendant a below-Guide-
lines sentence, on the basis that:
An exemplary military record, such as that possessed by this defendant,
demonstrates that the person has displayed attributes of courage, loy-
50. “The prosecution … generally is forbidden to initiate evidence of the bad character of the defendant …. Yet,
when the table is turned and the defendant in a criminal case seeks to offer evidence of his good character to
imply that he is unlikely to have committed a crime, the general rule against propensity evidence is not ap-
plied.”Ibid.
51. Hessick, supra note 44 at 1110.
52. Ibid. at 1111.
53. See e.g., N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.16(e)(14) (2007) (felony sentencing statute providing for the mitigation
of a defendant’s sentence if he “has been honorably discharged from the United States armed services”); Tenn.
Code Ann. § 40-35-113(13) (2007) (Tennessee trial courts are permitted to consider prior military service as a
mitigating factor, but they are under no obligation to mitigate an offender’s sentence on that basis; it is not a
statutorily defined mitigating factor, but is available under the “catch-all” provision of the annotated statute);
but see People v. Duncan, 5 Cal. Rptr. 3d 413, 414 (Ct. App. 2003) (observing that the trial court rejected “de-
fendant’s claim that his military service should be treated as a factor in mitigation”).
54. See e.g., United States v. Pipich, 688 F. Supp. 191 (D. Md. 1988) [Pipich]; State v. Kayer, 984 P.2d 31, 46-47
(Ariz. 1999) (“We have on rare occasions found that a defendant’s military record warranted consideration as a
mitigating circumstance”); State v. Anderson, 631 So. 2d 80, 83 (La. Ct. App. 1994); State v. Arterberry, 449
So. 2d 1179, 1181 (La. Ct. App. 1984).
55. See Andrew Ashworth, Sentencing and Criminal Justice, 3d ed. (New York: Cambridge U.P., 2000) at 151; Dan
Markel, “Against Mercy” (2004) 88 Minn. L. Rev. 1421 at 1437-38;Andrew von Hirsch, “Desert and Previous
Convictions in Sentencing” (1980) 65 Minn. L. Rev. 591 at 608.
56. Christina Chiafolo Montgomery, “Social and Schematic Injustice: The Treatment of Offender Personal Charac-
teristics Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines” (1993) 20 New Eng. J. on Crim. & Civ. Confinement 27 at
37-38.
57. 28 U.S.C. § 994(d) (2000). Some of the factors to be considered were previous employment record, community
ties, and criminal history.
58. Pipich, supra note 54.
APPEAL VOLUME 15 w45
alty, and personal sacrice that others in society have not. Americans
have historically held a veteran with a distinguished record of military
service in high esteem. is is part of the American tradition of respect
for the citizen-soldier, going back to the War of Independence. is
American tradition is itself the descendant of the far more ancient tra-
dition of the noble Romans, as exemplied by Cincinnatus.
In opposition to Pipich and other decisions, the Sentencing Commission adopted a new
Guideline mandating that “military, civic, charitable, or public service; employment-re-
lated contributions; and similar prior good works are not ordinarily relevant in determin-
ing” whether to impose a sentence outside the Guideline range. Currently, although a
district court may consider a defendant’s prior good acts in selecting a sentence within the
applicable Guideline range, the court may only sentence a defendant below that range when
a defendant’s prior military service, charitable acts, or other good works are “exceptional.”
Additionally, if states were to take veteran status into account as a “good” factor during
sentencing, the larger problem of a veteran’s underlying condition would still exist. e
veteran would still be incarcerated, albeit for a lesser amount of time, and would still suer
from PTSD. Rather than getting treatment, incarceration will likely seriously exacerbate
PTSD symptoms and cause the person’s level of functioning to deteriorate. Counseling
and treatment are generally sub-par in a prison environment, and PTSD suerers will gen-
erally not recover on their own.
Veterans, by and large, are unlikely to benet from mitigated sentencing approaches. Not
only is the law inconsistent and the outcome uncertain, but PTSD symptoms are likely to
be exacerbated in prison, and veterans will not be returned to society as law-abiding and
functioning citizens.
B. PTSD or Mental Health as an Affirmative Defense
In certain cases, such as for violent crimes and felonies, it is possible for veterans to use
their PTSD or other mental-health conditions as an armative defense. PTSD has been
used by veterans to prove existing criminal law defenses since . Aer the American
Psychiatric Association ocially recognized PTSD as a mental disorder in , the use
59. Ibid. at 193. Under the then-existing mandatory sentencing guidelines, district courts had the authority to give
sentences outside the mandatory range when they found that “there exists an aggravating or mitigating cir-
cumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in
formulating the guidelines that should result in a sentence different from that described.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)
(2000).
60. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Washington D.C.: United States Sentencing Com-
mission, 2007) at § 5H1.11.
61. Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 95-96 (1996).
62. PTSD is a chronic condition, but with the proper treatment and education, its symptoms can usually be success-
fully managed. It is unlikely that PTSD sufferers receive the proper treatment during incarceration. In fact, be-
cause prison life may re-traumatize a person, a lengthy incarceration will likely seriously exacerbate PTSD
symptoms and cause the person’s level of functioning to deteriorate. PTSD Fact Sheet, supra note 6 at 1.
63. Ibid.
64. Samuel P. Menefee, “The ‘Vietnam Syndrome’ Defense: A ‘G.I. Bill of Criminal Rights?’” (1985) Army Law. 1 at
27.
65. American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3d ed. (Washington,
D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 1980) at 236-39.
46 wAPPEAL VOLUME 15
of PTSD as a defense dramatically increased. Depending on the jurisdiction, PTSD can be
used to prove a defense of insanity, unconsciousness, diminished capacity, or self defense.
If PTSD is successfully used as an insanity defense, the veteran will be committed to a men-
tal health institution. If the veteran succeeds with an unconsciousness defense, due to
PTSD, the usual result will be a complete acquittal. A diminished capacity defense yields
the same result in other jurisdictions. Although there are a wide variety of plausible de-
fenses available to a veteran suering from PTSD, none of these defenses can fully address
the symptoms and results of PTSD. For example, in order to succeed with the uncon-
sciousness defense, the veteran must experience a dissociative state,w hich is oen very dif-
cult to prove.
In California, a veteran recently succeeded with an armative defense of PTSD. In Janu-
ary , a former Army Captain, Sargent Binkley, was accused of robbing a pharmacy at
gunpoint. Binkley had been diagnosed with PTSD aer serving in Bosnia and Honduras,
and developed an addiction to painkillers aer a hip injury that went untreated for years.
He was found not guilty by reason of insanity, based on his diagnosis of PTSD. As a re-
sult of the verdict, he will be treated in a state hospital, rather than facing to years in
prison.
However, Binkley’s story is an exception to the rule. In recent years, the overall use of the
insanity defense has decreased signicantly, and its successful use has also diminished.
e rise of the concept of the “moral agent,” the absence of a uniform application, and
66. C. Peter Erlinder, “Paying the Price for Vietnam: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Criminal Behavior”(1984)
25 B.C. L. Rev. 305 at 317 (explaining that “once PTSD was recognized as a disorder that could be isolated and
diagnosed by psychiatrists and psychologists, it became a legitimate issue to be raised in legal proceedings.
After the publication of DSM III, therefore, PTSD was raised in several cases as an explanation for a defendant’s
criminal conduct”).
67. Ann R. Auberry, “PTSD: Effective Representation of a Vietnam Veteran in the Criminal Justice System” (1985)
68 Marq. L. Rev. 647.
68. Ibid. at 665 (“In many jurisdictions an acquittal based upon an insanity defense creates a situation of automatic
commitment to a mental institution”).
69. Ibid. at 668-69.
71. Elizabeth J. Delgado, “Vietnam Stress Syndrome and the Criminal Defendant,” (1986) 19 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 473
at 484.
72. Erlinder, supra note 66 at 307.
73. Tracey Kaplan, “Ex-Army Officer Found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity in Robbery,” San Jose Mercury News
(13 January 2009), online: MercuryNews.com .
74. Daniel DeBolt, “Binkley Avoids Jail Sentence,” Mountain View Voice (13 January 2009), online: Mountain View
Voice .php?id=1101>.
75. Ibid.
76. Ibid.
77. This is largely analogous to the plea of “Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder” in Canada.
78. Stephen G. Valdes, “Frequency and Success: An Empirical Study of Criminal Law Defenses, Federal Constitu-
tional Evidentiary Claims, and Plea Negotiations” (2005) 153 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1709 at 1722-25.
79. Stephen J. Morse, “Crazy Reasons” (1999) 10 J. Contemp. Legal Issues 189 at 192.
80. Ellen Byers, “Mentally Ill Criminal Offenders and the Strict Liability Effect: Is There Hope for a Just Jurisprudence
in an Era of Responsibility/Consequences Talk?” (2004) 57 Ark. L. Rev. 447 at 449.
APPEAL VOLUME 15 w47
increased public disapproval of the insanity defense, have created a legal environment
that is disapproving of defenses based on mental illnesses. us, most veteran defendants
will likely not be able to present a successful insanity defense.
Another obstacle to the use of PTSD as a defense is the subjective nature of symptoms in
PTSD suerers. As a result, it is sometimes challenging to establish the presence of PTSD
in any particular defendant. In particular, lack of credibility remains a sizable obstacle in
the use of PTSD to aid veterans facing criminal charges.Diagnos es of mental health dis-
orders are based on the defendant’s own account, and are therefore vulnerable to skepticism
in the legal context, especially when a diagnosis would be self-serving when used by a de-
fendant in a criminal case. is skepticism is undoubtedly compounded when a defendant
asserts a defense based on PTSD, since no one but the defendant is able to recount and de-
scribe the symptoms and behavior that resulted from PTSD and led to the criminal con-
duct. Oentimes, a defendant’s substance abuse, which is oen a by-product of PTSD
itself, undermines the defendant’s credibility and enables prosecutors to point to a cause of
the defendant’s behavior apart from his or her mental illness.us, credibility remains a
signicant concern in cases involving evidence of PTSD.
Creating an even bigger obstacle when it comes to credibility is the fact that defendants can
easily fake PTSD. With a wealth of information available on the Internet and elsewhere
about PTSD, it is all too easy for individuals to use PTSD as an excuse, when they do not
in fact suer from the disorder. PTSD is widely regarded as an easy condition to fake.
False claims of PTSD have resulted in criminal acquittals, and have undoubtedly made it
more dicult for genuine PTSD suerers to succeed with a PTSD defense. In State v. Lock-
ett (“Lockett”), the defendant asserted a defense of “not responsible due to PTSD” as a re-
sult of his service in Vietnam, which the Court accepted. However, it was later revealed
that Lockett had never actually served in Vietnam. e Court set aside the plea, holding
that a defendant “may not use alleged statutory or constitutional rights as a protection for
fraud aer he put that service in issue.” As a result of Lockett and other cases involving
81. This is particularly a result of the public uproar over the acquittal of John Hinckley. See V.F. Nourse, “Reconcep-
tualizing Criminal Law Defenses” (2003) 151 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1691 at 1721 (referring to the Hinckley verdict as
“the most notorious of the modern insanity cases” and claiming that the “public rebelled” as a result of the ac-
quittal).
82. Constantina Aprilakis, “The Warrior Returns: Struggling to Address Criminal Behavior by Veterans with PTSD”
(2005) 3 Geo. J.L. & Pub. Policy 541 at 542.
83. Daniel E. Speir, “Application and Use of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as a Defense to Criminal Conduct”
(1989) Army Law. 17 at 18-19 [Speir].
84. M. Keane et al., “Forensic Psychological Assessment in PTSD” in Robert I. Simon, ed., Posttraumatic Stress Dis-
order in Litigation: Guidelines for Forensic Assessment (Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Publishing,
2003) 119 at 136.
85. Speir, supra note 83 at 18-19.
86. Ibid. at 18.
87. Ibid. at 19.
88. Ibid.; see also Betsy Streisand, “Treating War’s Toll on the Mind” U.S. News & World Report(1 October 2006),
online: usnews.com .
89. State v. Lockett, 468 N.Y.S.2d 802 at 803, 805 (1983) (Lockett based his plea of not responsible due to the
PTSD he suffered as a result of his service in the United States Air Force in Vietnam. In particular, Lockett as-
serted “I fought in the jungles in Vietnam” and “I am still a soldier there.”)
90. Ibid.
91. Ibid. at 807.
48 wAPPEAL VOLUME 15
defendants faking PTSD symptoms, prosecutors and judges will probably be more skepti-
cal of defendants’ claims of PTSD.
Additionally, this attaches a stigma to PTSD. As with the Vietnam veterans, society may
begin to look at modern veterans as loose cannons. If every veteran with PTSD could be
considered “insane,” many veterans will be motivated to hide their illness, and will avoid
seeking help when they know they are suering. Already, many veterans avoid seeking help
for their mental health problems. e military culture that veterans are a part of insists
that psychological injuries “are a sign of weakness.” As a result, many veterans are dis-
couraged from asking for help, and do not realize that PTSD is a medically-recognized
mental health disorder that many others are suering from as well.
e majority of veterans are unlikely to benet from the PTSD defense. Although it has
been used successfully in some cases, it is dicult to prove, juries are skeptical of it, and
defendants face challenging credibility obstacles in proving this defense.
C. Federal and State Initiatives
Several bills have been proposed in Congress that would have provided special funding
for programs that treat veterans involved with the justice system. e Second Chance for
America’s Veterans Act, proposed in , would have extended and provided additional
funding for the Incarcerated Veterans Transition Program (IVTP).During its pilot phase
from to , IVTP claimed it reduced recidivism rates amongst participants by
percent. IVTP also recorded that percent of its participants were moved into perma-
nent housing, and percent became gainfully employed. On the basis of this data, IVTP
claimed it saved taxpayers millions of dollars per year in incarceration costs and stimu-
lated local job growth and economic development by providing former oenders with
jobs. However, the pilot program stopped receiving funding as of September . e
bill that would have extended funding for the program was sponsored by Kentucky Rep-
resentative John Yarmuth, and was introduced in August . Aer the bill was intro-
duced, it was referred to the House Committee, but no further action was taken on the
bill, and funding has consequently ceased.
It is not entirely clear why this bill did not become law. However, in a statement before a
House subcommittee by Keith Pedigo, an Associate Deputy for the Veterans Benets Ad-
ministration (VBA), Pedigo noted that most of the services proposed under H.R.
could be provided through the Second Chance Act, which the President had signed into
law the previous week. e Second Chance Act formally authorized key features of the
92. Ilona Meagher, Moving a Nation to Care: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and America’s Returning Troops
(Brooklyn: Ig Publishing 2007) at xiii.
93. Ibid.
94. H.R. 3467, 110th Cong. (2007).
95. Ibid.
96. Ibid.
97. Ibid.
98. Ibid.
99. Ibid.
100. Keith Pedigo, Address (Statement before the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity House Committee on
Veterans’ Affairs Hearing of Legislation Affecting Veterans’ Benefit Programs), online: U.S. Dept. of Veterans
Affairs, Congressional and Legislative Affairs .asp>.
APPEAL VOLUME 15 w49
Prisoner Re-entry Initiative, which provides recently released ex-oenders, including vet-
erans, the support and services they need to successfully reintegrate into mainstream so-
ciety.Although there is nothing to indicate that this testimony was the reason the bill was
never enacted, it can be inferred that Pedigo’s statement in his capacity as a VBA repre-
sentative had a detrimental eect on the bill’s future.
e Services, Education, and Rehabilitation for Veterans Act, proposed by Rhode Island
Representative Patrick Kennedy in , would have authorized the Attorney General to
make grants to states and other entities: “() to develop, implement, or enhance veteran’s
treatment courts or to expand operational drug courts to serve veterans; and () for pro-
grams that involve continuing judicial supervision over nonviolent oenders with sub-
stance abuse or mental health problems who have served in the U.S. military.” is bill
would have provided funding for up to percent of the cost for states to create veterans
courts, but the bill was not passed. is has le funding for such treatment programs up
to individual states. Currently, there have been no attempts to reintroduce the bill or cre-
ate a similar initiative.
e California legislature understands the need to address the problems faced by veterans
who return from combat in Iraq or Afghanistan with psychological problems brought on
by their war-time experience. e state recently amended its penal code to provide special
relief from harsh sentencing policies specically for service members with PTSD or sub-
stance abuse problems. e State had enacted a similar provision in the past, in response
to the inux of Vietnam veterans into the criminal justice system. However, the previ-
ous law was found to be ineective in providing any sort of special relief to veterans, be-
cause there was no federal statute that authorized the Federal Bureau of Prisons to house
Vietnam veterans serving state sentences. e new amended law applies to:
[A]ny person convicted of a criminal oense who would otherwise be
sentenced to county jail or state prison and who alleges that he or she
committed the oense as a result of post-traumatic stress disorder, sub-
stance abuse, or psychological problems stemming from service in a
combat theater in the United States military.
Aer a defendant makes a claim, a court must then hold a hearing to determine whether
the person was in fact a combat veteran, and must assess whether he or she suers from
PTSD, substance abuse, or psychological problems as a result of their combat service. If
the court nds that the veteran satises those requirements, and if the veteran is otherwise
101. Ibid.
102. H.R. 7149, 110th Cong. (2008).
103. Cal. Penal Code § 1170.9 (West 2009).
104. Cal. Penal Code § 1170.8 (West 2005).
105. People v. Abdullah, 9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 131 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992).
106. Cal. Penal Code § 1170.9(a) (West 2009).
107. Ibid.
50 wAPPEAL VOLUME 15
eligible for probation,the court will then place the veteran on probation, and may order
the veteran into an appropriate (local, state, federal, or private nonprot) treatment pro-
gram. If the veteran is granted probation and is committed to a residential treatment
program, he or she will earn sentence credits for the actual time served in treatment.
Although federal attempts at a comprehensive solution have failed so far, states such as
California have recognized that there is a problem, and have attempted to solve the prob-
lem by creating laws that provide for the treatment of veterans who suer from PTSD,
mental health disorders, or substance abuse.
III. SPECIALIZED VETERANS COURTS
Veterans courts are the newest addition to the larger theory of “therapeutic justice” and
“problem-solving courts.” erapeutic justice addresses the root cause of an oender’s crim-
inality and treats the oender to remove the problems and returns the oender to the com-
munity as a responsible citizen.Problem-solving courts are “specialized courts that seek
to respond to persistent social, human, and legal problems, such as addiction, family dys-
function, domestic violence, mental illness, and quality-of-life crime.”
While traditional courts focus on processing the cases that come before them, resulting in
a revolving door syndrome, problem-solving courts focus on achieving positive outcomes
for victims, defendants, and communities.Generally, the new veterans courts have been
modeled aer the mental health and drug courts that sprung up in the late s. Men-
tal health courts, for example, attempt to “achieve two separate but interrelated outcomes
by linking oenders with mental illness to treatment as an alternative to incarceration: im-
proved psychiatric stability for the oenders and improved public safety.”Building on the
model of drug and mental health courts, veterans courts seek to work with mental health
agencies, veteran mentors, substance abuse treatment programs, housing providers, and
others to help veterans lead a crime-free life in the community.
Similar to the drug and mental health courts, most of the veterans courts that have been
created do not allow defendants accused of violent crimes to participate in their pro-
108. Defendants are eligible for probation as long as they do not fall within one of the categories restricting the
availability of probation. Under California law, probation is precluded primarily for those who commit violent
crimes or serious drug offenses, or are recidivist serious offenders. Most of the mandatory provisions are in-
cluded in the probation provisions of the Penal Code. Cal. Penal Code §§ 1203.06-1203.09 (West 2009). A
non-exhaustive list of criminal charges that preclude a defendant from probation are: murder, robbery, kidnap-
ping, lewd acts, first degree burglary, rape, carjacking, torture, and anyone who was previously convicted of
one of the aforementioned crimes. Cal. Penal Code § 1203.06 (West 2009).
109. Cal. Penal Code § 1170.9(b) (West 2009).
110. Cal. Penal Code § 1170.9(e) (West 2009).
111. Teresa W. Carns et al., “Therapeutic Justice in Alaska’s Courts” (2002) 19 Alaska L. Rev. 1 at 5.
112. John Feinblatt et al., “Judicial Innovation at the Crossroads: The Future of Problem Solving Courts” (2000) 15
Ct. Manager 28 at 29.
113. Carol Fisler, “Building Trust and Managing Risk:A Look at a Felony Mental Health Court” (2005) 11 Psychol.
Pub. Policy & l. 587 at 589 [Fisler].
114. Michael C. Dorf & Jeffrey A. Fagan, “Community Courts and Community Justice: Foreword: Problem-Solving
Courts: From Innovation to Institutionalization” (2003) 40 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1501 at 1502-03. The first of the
modern drug courts opened in Miami in 1989 and included Janet Reno among its key participants. As Attorney
General, she provided seed money for drug courts nationwide, and today there are over 1000 operating drug
courts. Ibid.
115. Fisler, supra note 113 at 590.
APPEAL VOLUME 15 w51
grams. Judges are naturally apprehensive about releasing violent oenders back into so-
ciety, even if they are participating in some kind of treatment program.
e bulk of the funding for the existing veterans courts comes from Veterans Aairs,but
other funding has come from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Adminis-
tration of the US Department of Health and Human Services.
Currently, the two best-developed programs are in Bualo, New York, and Orange County,
California, both of which began operations in . Other veterans courts have been
proposed or already started in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Ari-
zona, and Illinois. A review of these programs demonstrates their superiority to the al-
ternatives already explored (taking a defendant’s veteran status into account only at the
sentencing stage, or using PTSD as an armative defense).
A. Buffalo, New York
In early , Bualo City Court Judge Robert Russell established the rst-ever specialized
court for veterans accused of nonviolent felonies and misdemeanors. Judge Russell began
the program aer he noticed a signicant increase in veterans ( in one year), many with
drug and psychiatric problems, coming through the system.e program oers defen-
dants an opportunity to avoid incarceration or more serious charges in return for entering
addiction or mental health treatment and taking other steps to right their lives. Judge
Russell “believed [the veterans] might benet from being in the courtroom together, given
the military’s strong sense of camaraderie.” e court meets once or twice a week, and
veterans are required to report back once a month to report on their progress. Most vet-
erans will be required to stay in the treatment program for at least a year, in order to make
enough progress to have their charges diminished or dismissed. Since it began, vet-
erans have enrolled in the program, percent of whom are Iraq or Afghanistan veter-
ans. So far, only two veterans have been unable to avoid incarceration, and only one has
been re-arrested.
Several success stories from the Bualo Veterans Court have been reported. Tom Irish, a
Vietnam War veteran, was charged with a felony weapons possession, aer he pointed a
116. Matthew Daneman, “N.Y. Court Gives Veterans Chance to Straighten Out” USA Today (1 June 2008), online:
usatdoday.com .com/news/nation/2008-06-01-veterans-court_N.htm> [“Chance to
Straighten Out”]; but see Superior Court of California County of Orange, Veterans Court Participant’s Hand-
book (on file with author, 2008) at 25 [Orange County Veterans Handbook].
117. Marek, supra note 15.
118. Ibid.
119. Ibid.
120. Ibid.
121. See Part III above.
122. “Chance to Straighten Out”, supra note 116.
123. Ibid.
124. Ibid.
125. Marek, supra note 15.
126. Ibid.
127. Ibid.
128. Ibid.
129. Ibid.
52 wAPPEAL VOLUME 15
loaded shotgun at police who were responding to a disturbance call at his home. Irish
was drunk during the incident, and claimed that he was suering from a ashback; he did-
n’t see the police ocers during the incident, but instead saw Viet Cong soldiers. In-
stead of time behind bars, Irish was allowed to participate in the Bualo Veterans Court.
He is undergoing counseling, and the charges against him will likely be dropped if he com-
pletes everything that is required by the court.
omas Zaborowski, a Korean War veteran, suered for many years with the aermath of
his experiences from the war. Shortly aer returning from war, he found himself facing
criminal charges for impaired driving, marijuana possession, and criminal mischief.
Aer his third arrest, he was given the option of going to the Bualo Veterans Court, rather
than spending ten days in jail. Aer his participation in the program, Zaborowski is
now sober and plans to attend college next spring, a rst in his family. He plans to use
funds that are available to him as a veteran, something he did not know about until the vet-
erans court provided him with the information.
B. Orange County, California
e rst of its kind in California, the Orange County Veterans Court began operating in
November . e court was an expansion of the county’s already-existing collaborative
court system. Orange County Superior Court Judge Wendy Lindley, who oversees the
mental health and drug courts, helped to start the new veterans court aer a young Iraq vet-
eran died of a drug overdose, shortly aer passing through her criminal courtroom.She
rst approached her superiors with the idea of a veterans court, with the newly amended
California penal code as support. In order to get a better idea of what the new court
would entail, Judge Lindley ew to New York, to talk to Bualo City Court Judge Robert
Russell and observe his court. With the information from the Bualo Veterans Court and
the assistance of the Center for Court Innovation, Judge Lindley helped to successfully cre-
ate California’s rst veterans court.
130. “Chance to Straighten Out”, supra note 116.
131. Ibid.
132. Ibid.
133. Ibid.
134. Amanda Ruggeri, “New Courts Give Troubled Veterans a Second Chance” U.S. News & World Report (3 April
2009, online: usnews.com .
troubledveterans-a-second-chance.html?PageNr=3>.
135. Ibid.
136. Ibid.
137. Ibid.
138. Ibid.
139. Orange County has various specialized courts all under one roof: Drug Court, Homeless Outreach Court, Co-
Occurring Disorders Court, Domestic Violence Court and the newest addition – Veterans Court. See, Collabora-
tive Courts, online: Superior Court of California – County of Orange
140. Interview of Judge Wendy Lindley (14 April 2009), in Orange County Superior Court, Santa Ana, Cal. [Inter-
view of Judge Lindley].
141. Cal. Penal Code § 1170.9 (West 2009).
142. Interview of Judge Lindley, supra note 140.
143. Ibid.
144. Ibid.
APPEAL VOLUME 15 w53
e mission of the Orange County Veterans Court “is to provide an inter-agency, collab-
orative, nonadversarial treatment strategy for [v]eterans in the criminal justice system who
suer from PTSD, psychological, or substance abuse problems as a result of having served
in a combat theater.” It was developed to help veterans achieve abstinence from illegal
drugs, avoid criminal activity, and to address their mental health issues. e court was
“designed to promote self-suciency and to return [veterans] to the community as … pro-
ductive and responsible citizen[s].” e program “is a court-supervised, comprehensive
treatment collaborative, whose goal is to help [veterans] address the issues that led to [their]
contact with the criminal justice system.” e program is voluntary for qualied veter-
ans and includes regular court appearances before a designated veterans court Judge.
Aer an individual is arrested and is found to be eligible for the program (he or she must be
a combat veteran and eligible for probation), the veteran is advised about and oered a choice
between prosecution on the pending charges or the veterans court program. Entry into the
program requires the defendant to enter a guilty plea. e “[f]inal determination of entry
into the program [is] made by the Judge, with the concurrence of the District Attorney, VA,
defense counsel, Probation, law enforcement, and other agencies as appropriate.”
e court meets weekly, and before the calendar is called a meeting is held with the Orange
County Veterans Court Judge, the District Attorney, the public defender or the defendant’s
own private counsel, and a VA representative, where they discuss each individual that is
seeking entry into the program. ey review the veteran’s case le, the charges against
him or her, and any other pertinent information. If the parties agree that the veteran is
an optimal candidate, the judge then admits the veteran into the program. A few exam-
ples of defendants who will typically not be admitted into the program are those charged
with domestic violence or those who are charged with possession of drugs with intent to
sell. e court does not have appropriate treatment programs for domestic violence of-
fenders, and the risk of having a drug dealer in the program is too high. e primary pur-
pose of the court is to treat veterans who are suering from substance abuse, PTSD, or
other mental health disorders. If one of these conditions can be reasonably found to un-
derlie the charges the veteran is facing, then he or she will be admitted into the program.
Aer the veteran pleads guilty to the charges and is admitted into the program, the veteran
is then placed on “formal probation” for three years, and immediately reports to the Pro-
145. Orange County Veterans Court Brochure at 2 (on file with author, 2008).
146. Orange County Veterans Handbook, supra note 116 at 25.
147. Ibid.
148. Ibid. at 2.
149. Ibid.
150. Ibid. at 3.
151. Ibid.
152. Ibid.
153. Interview of Judge Lindley, supra note 140.
154. Ibid.
155. Ibid.
156. Ibid.
157. Ibid.
158. Ibid.
159. Ibid.
54 wAPPEAL VOLUME 15
bation Department. ere is a -day window during which time the veteran can with-
draw his or her guilty plea, presumably resulting in prosecution on the original charges.
Additionally, failure or discharge from the program will result in imposition of sentence for
the original charges. However, successful completion of the program avoids incarcera-
tion, allows the veteran to receive the counseling and help that he or she needs, and “may
result in having the charges dismissed.” However, the dismissal of charges does not au-
tomatically occur. It happens on a case-by-case basis, depending on the degree of the crime
(felony or misdemeanor), and whether the attorneys and judge agree that dismissal would
be appropriate. Generally, most felonies will be reduced to misdemeanors, and most
misdemeanor charges will be dismissed.
During participation in the program, the veteran is required to adhere to specic terms and
conditions, including abstinence from drugs and alcohol.e veteran’s probation ocer
is responsible for supervision and enforcement of the probation terms and conditions.
Probation supervision includes unannounced home visits, searches of the veteran and his
or her residence, and may include random drug or alcohol testing (if appropriate). e
majority of the participants in April were subjected to weekly drug testing. If a vet-
eran violates the requirements of the program, sanctions will be imposed on him or her.
For example, if a veteran fails a weekly drug test, he or she may be incarcerated, for a period
of time determined by the judge. Other examples of sanctions that may be imposed in-
clude an admonishment from the court, increased frequency of court appearances, in-
creased drug testing, demotion to an earlier phase in the program, or a nding of a formal
probation violation.If a veteran continually violates the program’s requirements, the vet-
eran will be dismissed from the program and will likely face prosecution on the original
charges. Most veterans are required to report to the court on a weekly basis, and give the
judge an update on their progress.e District Attorney, the defense attorney, and the VA
representative will also give the judge an update on the veteran’s progress.
Treatment during the program includes “individual and group counseling, drug testing,
and regular attendance at self-help meetings if appropriate (such as Narcotics Anonymous
or Alcoholics Anonymous), [and] is provided through the combined eort of the Proba-
160. Orange County Veterans Handbook, supra note 116 at 3.
161. Ibid.
162. Ibid.
163. Ibid.
164. Interview of Judge Lindley, supra note 140.
165. The types of charges that will not be dismissed are DUIs, and other crimes that would constitute a “prior” if the
defendant were to re-offend. Ibid.
166. Orange County Veterans Handbook, supra note 116 at 3.
167. Ibid.
168. Ibid.
169. Interview of Judge Lindley, supra note 140.
170. Orange County Veterans Handbook, supra note 116 at 22.
171. Ibid.
172. Ibid. at 22-23.
173. Ibid.
174. Interview of Judge Lindley, supra note 140.
175. Ibid.
APPEAL VOLUME 15 w55
tion Department, the Veterans Administration, and other agencies.”ose agencies also
help the veterans “with obtaining education and skills assessments and … provide refer-
rals for vocational training, education and/or job placement services.” e program lasts
at least months, but is determined by each participant’s progress. Additionally, ongo-
ing aercare services are available to all who complete the program.
CONCLUSION: THE FUTURE OF VETERANS COURTS
Although it may be argued that specialized courts, such as veterans, drug, or mental health
courts, are fundamentally unfair because they provide a sort of selective justice to the par-
ticipants, ultimately the good provided by these courts greatly outweighs any of these con-
cerns. Numerous specialized courts have been created over the years, beyond those
mentioned above, and there is a signicant amount of literature regarding the success of
those courts. Drug and mental health courts have been operating in the United States since
the late s, and have had signicant success. Although the legal system is an adversar-
ial one, which may require treating all defendants the same, American society has come to
realize that all defendants are not the same. is is why certain defenses have become more
widely accepted over the years, why mitigating factors are taken into account at sentenc-
ing, and more importantly, why specialized courts are created and needed.
No one is arguing that veterans should receive a “free pass” aer committing a crime. How-
ever, veterans who suer from PTSD should be treated dierently in a criminal context. Al-
though sentence mitigation, armative defenses, and other eorts may assist in certain
circumstances, they are not the most eective way to deal with the massive inux of vet-
eran defendants that the courts will see over the next decade. By creating veterans courts,
states will be able to adjudicate veteran defendants, while simultaneously providing treat-
ment and returning them to society as law-abiding citizens. is does not equate to pref-
erential treatment or a lack of justice.
e United States must recognize and confront the problem of hundreds of thousands of
veterans returning with mental health issues and subsequently committing crimes as a re-
sult of their conditions. With no clear guidance or federal funding, states will have to de-
cide how and whether to confront the issue and try to solve the problem of justice-involved
veterans. e Bualo Court, as the rst veterans court, provides the most data for the suc-
cess of these courts. However, there is limited data on the precise procedures and eligibil-
ity requirements of this court. e Orange County Veterans Court, modeled on the Bualo
Court, is so new that it has no data on the success rate of its veterans, but provides a sig-
nicant amount of information on creating one of these courts.
Nevertheless, states should model their veterans courts aer the Bualo and Orange
County courts. Both courts were created with the assistance of the Center for Court Inno-
vation, and are modeled aer the highly successful drug and mental health courts that have
ourished across the country. Although the Orange County Veterans Court does not
specically require that a veteran be diagnosed with PTSD in order to be eligible for the
176. Orange County Veterans Handbook, supra note 116 at 2.
177. Ibid.
178. Ibid.
179. Ibid.
56 wAPPEAL VOLUME 15
program, a mandatory evaluation of each participant has revealed that most participants
suer from some type of mental-health disorder. States looking to create their own veter-
ans court should require that an evaluation of possible participants reveal some kind of
mental-health disorder or substance abuse problem that is causing their criminal behav-
ior. Otherwise, all veterans would conceivably be eligible for the program, when there is no
reason for them to be in the treatment program.
e creation of specialized courts for veterans is an innovative idea that will assist many vet-
erans in overcoming their legal problems that have resulted from PTSD and other service-
related issues. It is impossible to deny the frequent connection between combat trauma
and subsequent criminal behavior. e United States must recognize this as a direct soci-
etal cost of war and do everything it can to rehabilitate veterans and return them to soci-
ety as law-abiding citizens. Veterans courts are the best step in this direction.
APPEAL VOLUME 15 w57
To continue reading
Request your trial