Competency

Question 1

Dusky v. United States (1959)

Answer 1

SCOTUS established standards for CST: sufficient present ability to consult with an attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding & rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him
capacity not willingness

Question 2

Wilson v. United States (1968)

Answer 2

amnesia alone is not grounds for IST

Question 3

Ake v. Oklahoma (1985)

Answer 3

Indigent defendants must be provided psychiatric expertise at sentencing in a capital case in which mental illness or dangerousness is at issue

Question 4

Pate v. Robinson (1966)

Answer 4

A trial judge must order an inquiry into competency if a “bona fide doubt” exists about CST

Question 5

Drope v. Missouri (1975)

Answer 5

IST responsibility expanded to include all parties

Question 6

Jackson v. Indiana (1972)

Answer 6

SCOTUS ruled that individuals found IST cannot be held indefinitely if there is no real chance of recovering competency

confinement for IST must address competency restoration, not just warehousing; and if competency cannot be expected within a reasonable period of time, the defendant must be released or civilly commitment (states vary from 1 to 5 years)

Question 7

Estelle v. Smith (1981)

Answer 7

Failure to notify defense of the CST evaluation violated rights

Question 8

Cooper v. OK (1996)

Answer 8

preponderance of the evidence as standard in competency cases

Question 9

Medina v. CA (1992)

Answer 9

burden of proof falls upon the party making that assertion, typically defendant

affirmed preponderance of the evidence as standard for CST

Question 10

US v. Duhon (2000)

Answer 10

competency restoration cannot merely take the form of rote memorization of courtroom trivia

Question 11

Riggins v. Nevada (1992)

Answer 11

SCOTUS ruled that rights were violated with forced meds; meds were forced so that he was appropriate, not to mitigate danger, and that it could have been replaced with less intrusive method; prohibited medication to render one competent

Question 12

Sell v. United States (2003)

Answer 12

SCOTUS ruled that an inmate could be involuntarily medicated under 4 conditions
(1) The individual facts of the case suggest that important governmental interests are served by getting the defendant competent and proceeding to trial.
(2) The forced medication is substantially likely to significantly further those state interests.
(3) Any less intrusive interventions are unlikely to provide the same benefits.
(4) The medication is also in the best medical interest of the defendant.
Court urged that other rationales be used (dangerousness)

Question 13

US v. Greer (1998)

Answer 13

Def obstructed justice by malingering incompetence and allowed a sentence enhancement

Question 14

Seiling v. Eyman (1973)

Answer 14

competence to plead guilty higher than CST (overruled by Godinez v. Moran)

Question 15

Colorado v. Connelly (1986)

Answer 15

Mental illness in a defendant, in and of itself, does not provide a basis to conclude that the confession was coerced or that there was improper waiver of right; individuals can be convicted of crimes on the basis of confessions prompted by mental illness

Question 16

Ford v. Wainwright (1986)

Answer 16

capital punishment is cruel and unusual punishment for severely disturbed individuals

Question 17

State v. Perry (1992)

Answer 17

An inmate with Schizophrenia could not be forced to take medication to make him competent to be executed

Question 18

Faretta v California (1975)

Answer 18

upheld the right to self-representation, even though it may be clear that a defendant may act to his own detriment

Question 19

Godinez v. Moran (1993)

Answer 19

standard of competency is equal for all criminal defendants whether they plead guilty or not guilty

There is no reason why deciding to waive counsel would require a higher degree of competency than pleading guilty or waiving any other constitutional right (overruled Seiling v. Eyman)

Question 20

Indiana v. Edwards (2008)

Answer 20

the bar for proceeding without an attorney may be higher than proceeding to trial with an attorney

Question 21

Whalem v. United States (1965)

Answer 21

a court must impose an insanity defense in a situation in which it would be likely to succeed

Question 22

In re Gault (1967)

Answer 22

due process protections for juveniles

Question 23

JDB v. North Carolina (2011)

Answer 23

Miranda warning procedures should account for mental capacities of juveniles

Question 24

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Answer 24

5th Amendment rights had been violated when his rights were not disclosed to him, including the right to have an attorney present to help him understand his rights

Question 25

Fare v. Michael C. (1979)

Answer 25

set boundaries on Miranda protections for juveniles

Question 26

GJI v. State (1989)

Answer 26

OK’s competency statute was not applicable to juvenile proceedings, saying that it was “neither appropriate nor necessary” that a child understand a case against him or her since the system was allegedly focused on treatment, not punishment

Question 27

Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130 S. Ct. 2250 (2010)

Answer 27

solely remaining silent is not sufficient to invoke Miranda

Question 28

Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936)

Answer 28

prevents the prosecution from using information in a confession that resulted from the use of force by police (torture)

Question 29

Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986)

Answer 29

ruling that trial court erred in excluding evidence related to the circumstance under which the confession was made

Question 30

Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000)

Answer 30

upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects

Question 31

Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964)

Answer 31

criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations

Question 32

Fellers v. United States, 540 U.S. 519 (2004)

Answer 32

officers violated right to counsel by deliberately eliciting incriminating information after an indictment and in the absence of a lawyer

Question 33

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970)

Answer 33

defendant concluded based on competent counsel that it was in his best interest to plead guilty (to avoid death penalty)

Question 34

U.S. v. Marble, 940 F.2d 1543 (D.C. Dir. 1991)

Answer 34

an insanity defense could not be imposed on a competent defendant