Disorder in the Court: Cluster B Personality Disorders in United States Case Law

Abstract

Previous research has shown that antisocial, borderline, narcissistic and histrionic personality disorders, also known as the Cluster B personality disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fifth Edition (DSM–5), are commonly raised in lawsuits. Cluster B disorders are characterized by problems with emotion regulation, impulsivity and interpersonal conflicts. Without question, individuals diagnosed with a Cluster B disorder possess traits that make them more susceptible to becoming involved in litigation; however, to date there has been no research on how the disorders interact with the judicial system. This study surveyed litigant success of Cluster B personality disorders in United States federal and state case law. Results showed that both criminal and civil litigants tended to be unsuccessful in their cases. Overall, this study demonstrated that court opinions can provide a window into the psychology of trial litigants and how personality can affect trial outcomes.

Key words:

• antisocial
• borderline
• case law
• Cluster B
• forensic
• histrionic
• litigation
• narcissistic
• personality disorders

Ethical standards

 

Declaration of conflicts of interest

Catherine Young has declared no conflicts of interest

Janice Habarth has declared no conflicts of interest

Bruce Bongar has declared no conflicts of interest

Wendy Packman has declared no conflicts of interest

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Notes

1. Atkins v. VA, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (establishing that imposing capital punishment on ‘mentally retarded’ individuals constituted excessive punishment and violated the 8th Amendment).

2. Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota.

3. Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands.

4. 466 US 668 (1984) (holding that a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated when counsel renders ineffective assistance).

5. Appeals stemming from criminal conduct involving constitutional rights issues (e.g. habeas corpus petitions) were categorized as civil based upon the area of law they would likely fall under.

6. Most litigants diagnosed with a Cluster B personality disorder were categorized as plaintiffs or appellants because they were often the parties appealing earlier decisions. This means that the majority of these Cluster B litigants were defendants in their original trials. Because published case opinions tend to be appellate in nature, the cases that were reviewed reflected the Cluster B litigant as the plaintiff/appellant/petitioner but may not necessarily mean that depiction was true in earlier proceedings. In sum, despite what role Cluster B litigants appeared to play in this sample, it is more likely that they would be on the receiving end of a lawsuit.

7. Unreported cases are cases that are not published in hard copy reporter series. Similar to unpublished cases, unreported cases were excluded from this study.

8. These cases mentioned the diagnosis in a parenthetical citation to an earlier case or described testimony in which the litigant was said to have “features” or “traits” of the disorder rather than the diagnosis; accordingly, these cases were omitted. The same is true of the remaining three Cluster B personality disorders where no diagnosis was found in the opinion.

9. Note: 2016 data were incomplete as of data collection in this study.

10. Interestingly, John Hinckley, who successfully argued his insanity case after he gained notoriety for stalking Jodie Foster and the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, appeared in this sample's search results due to his lengthy history of carrying an NPD diagnosis; however, his appeal at US v Hinckley, 40 F Supp 3d 8 (2013) was concerned with the issue of his conditional release from St. Elizabeth's Hospital where he had been held for the last 30 years rather than his insanity plea.

11. There were no successful capital punishment cases in this sample with an NPD or HPD party.

12. Landmark decision holding that the death penalty did not violate the U.S. Constitution's 8th and 14th Amendments.