AAPL - Criminal Competencies Flashcards
Is basic knowledge about one’s charges enough to be competent to stand trial?
No.
Dusky v. U.S. (1960). The test of competency is “whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding–and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings.
Must permanent retrograde amnesia render a defendant incompetent to stand trial?
No.
Wilson v. U.S. (1968). The US Court of Appeals, DC, said that retrograde amnesia is not enough to preclude proceeding to trial but that the trial court must consider if there is sufficient extrinsic information about what happened, whether the defendant can follow the proceeding against him, discuss the proceedings rationally with his attorney, and testify on his own behalf, and the strength of the state’s case.
Can a defendant be committed indefinitely if he is found incompetent to stand trial but not restorable?
No.
Jackson v. Indiana (1972). Deaf-mute in Indiana who could not be restored to competency after stealing small value items. The USSC said that indefinite commitment due to incompetency violated due process.
Should a judge interrupt criminal proceedings if a defendant appears to be incompetent?
Yes.
Drope v. Missouri (1975). Raped wife - shot himself in the stomach during the trial. USSC concluded that the record revealed a failure to give proper weight to the information that came to light at the trial, suggesting Mr. Drope’s incompetence. The Court should reconsider competence at any point in a trial where circumstances suggest a change that would render the accused unable to meet the competency standards to stand trial.
Is it a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to place the burden of proof on the defendant to demonstrate incompetence to stand trial?
No.
Medina v. California (1992). The USSC found that despite that the State was not required to adopt one procedure over another on the basis that it may produce results more favorable to the accused. As long as a State provided a defendant access to procedures for making a competency evaluation, due process was satisfied.
Is the standard to waive constitutional rights higher than the standard for competency to stand trial?
No.
Godinez v. Moran (1993). Las Vegas– Red Pearl Saloon. The USSC, reversing the 9th Circuit Appeals Court, said that there was no higher standard of competency and that the Dusky standard applied.
Is a preponderance of the evidence the appropriate standard for deciding whether a defendant is competent to stand trial?
Yes.
Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996).
Issue: Whether Oklahoma’s requirement that a defendant prove incompetence by clear and convincing evidence violated the Due Process Clause
The USSC reversed the Court of Criminal Appeal’s finding that clear and convincing evidence is not protective of the defendant’s rights under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment because it “imposes a significant risk of erroneous determination” that an incompetent defendant could be found competent. The result of such a determination threatens the “basic fairness of the trial itself,” and the defendant’s right to be tried while competent outweighs the state’s interest in operating an efficient criminal justice system. The standard of proof must be a preponderance of the evidence.
Can a state deny a defendant the right to self-representation despite being found competent to stand trial?
Yes.
Indiana v. Edwards (2008). The USSC opined that the standard for competency to stand trial was not necessarily the same as the standard to determine competency for defendants to conduct trial proceedings themselves. The U.S. Constitution permits states to insist upon representation by counsel for those incompetent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves but competent to stand trial under Dusky. States can set higher standards.
Does prolonged wait time while incarcerated for competency evaluation and/or restoration services violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Yes.
Trueblood v. Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (2016). Class action lawsuit. Prolonged detention violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
