Competence to Proceed Flashcards
Dusky v. U.S. (1960) *
Having a basic knowledge of one’s charges is NOT sufficient for competency to stand trial
(1) Sufficient present ability to consult with attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding (2) Rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against them
Pate v. Robinson (1966) *
Defendants are constitutionally entitled to a hearing on the issue of competence to stand trial (failure to do so violates due process under the 14th Amendment)
Also notes court should presume competence, esp. if the prosecutor raises and defendant can “clearly articulate” a reason to avoid the eval - protects against “bad faith” questions of competence
Wilson v. U.S. (1968) *
Permanent retrograde amnesia DOES NOT automatically render a defendant incompetent to stand trial
No violation of due process of procedural safeguards are observed: The extent to which:
(1) amnesia affected the defendant’s ability to consult with and assist his lawyer. (2) amnesia affected the defendant’s ability to testify in his own behalf. (3) the evidence in suit could be extrinsically reconstructed in view of the defendant’s amnesia. Such evidence would include evidence relating to the crime itself as well as any reasonably possible alibi. (4) the Government assisted the defendant and his counsel in that reconstruction. Additionally, (5) the strength of the prosecution’s case. Most important here will be whether the Government’s case is such as to negate all reasonable hypotheses of innocence. If there is any substantial possibility that the accused could, but for his amnesia, establish an alibi or other defense, it should be presumed that he would have been able to do so. (6) Any other facts and circumstances which would indicate whether or not the defendant had a fair trial. After finding all the facts relevant to the fairness of the trial, considering the amnesia, the court will then make a judgment whether, under applicable principles of due process, the conviction should stand.
Jackson v. Indiana (1972)
A defendant CANNOT be committed indefinitely if they are found incompetent to proceed and unrestorable (cannot be held more than a “reasonable period of time” after which civil commitment must justify further detainment). Subjecting def to more lenient commitment standards and more stringent release standards than civil commitment deprives them of equal protection.
Doing so violates due process and equal protection clauses of 14th Amendment
Does NOT state that charges must be dropped though (unresolved)
State may further detain the individual only upon a finding of mental disability and danger to self/others.
Seiling v. Eyman (1973)
Being competent to stand trial is NOT sufficient for considering competency to plead guilty
(later overturned in Godinez)
Drope v. Missouri (1975) *
A judge should interrupt criminal proceedings if a defendant appears to be incompetent
Mental illness in and of itself (or a suicide attempt) does not automatically mean someone is incompetent however
Due process requires that defendants be competent throughout their trials - inquiry may be initiated at any point during the proceedings.
Estelle v. Smith (1981) *
Information gathered as part of a pretrial psychiatric evaluation is NOT admissible during sentencing (violates 6th Amendment right to assistance of counsel bc Smith didn’t have atty there to decide what might hurt him, and 5th Amendment right to remain silent bc Dr. Death didn’t warn him that info could be used against him in sentencing/purpose of eval)
Medina v. California (1992) *
Placing the burden of proof on the defendant (to prove incompetence) is NOT a violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment or equal protection rights
Burden is on the party making the assertion (usually the defense) to prove incompetence by preponderance, unless the state automatically puts the burden on the prosecution.
Riggins v. Nevada (1992) *
A person standing trial CANNOT be forced to take antipsychotic medication - it must first be determined to be medically appropriate and the least intrusive option (Harper standards).
Requires trial judge (and thus evaluator) to calibrate carefully the effect of med on defendant’s ability to understand and participate in the proceedings, and consult with counsel.
Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996) *
“Preponderance of the evidence” is the appropriate standard for determining a defendant’s competence to stand trial. Clear and convincing is too high per SCOTUS.
In close-call situations, it’s better to wrongly call someone “incompetent” when they aren’t (than the other way around)
U.S. v. Duhon (2000) *
Rote memorization is not enough to demonstrate competency (emphasizes importance of cognitive/rational understanding such as applying the factual understanding)
Also, if unrestorable, release them or initiate civil commitment proceedings
Sell v. United States (2003) *
Antipsychotic drugs CAN be forced on a defendant (facing serious criminal charges) to restore them to competency (and to tx dangerousness).
(1) Important government interests at stake (2) Tx is medically appropriate (3) Tx substantially likely to render the defendant competent (4) Tx is substantially unlikely to have side effects that interfere with ability to assist counsel (5) No less intrusive methods exist
Ake v. Oklahoma (1985) *
Indigent persons have the constitutional right to a psychiatric examiner, and capital defendants are entitled to psych assistance when mitigating circumstances is an issue in capital sentencing. However, canNOT have expert of their choosing.
