CST Flashcards
Dusky v US
set basic CST standard
1. rational and factual understanding of proceedings against him
2. ability to consult with attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding
Pate v Robinson
BONA FIDE doubt
- trial judge MUST raise the issue of competency if there is a bona fide doubt
Wilson v U.S.
AMNESIA- dude got TBI while being appended for his crime
Court held that amnesia doesn’t bar prosecution or automatically make someone IST but
- issued guidelines for trial court in determining CST
- required prosecution to assist in defense (alibi)
Jackson v Indiana
man who was ID, deaf, and mute was found IST and committed for restoration
SCOTUS ruled that states can’t indefinitely commit defendants who are IST - this is a due process violation
- must limit commitment based on likelihood of restoration
Drope v Missouri
Drope was on trial for raping his wife, his attorney requested a continuance for a psych evaluation, his wife confirmed he was crazy, then he shot himself and missed trial cause he was in the hospital
- judge told jury he voluntarily missed his trial
SCOTUS held that his due process rights were violated because court failed to order a competency evaluation
- threshold for ordering CST eval is low
- if the issue is raised, the motion should be granted
Estelle v Smith
CST eval testimony was admitted during sentencing phase
SCOTUS ruled that CST eval cannot be used against defendant
- can’t force someone to submit to a psych evaluation for the purposes of sentencing
- violation of 5th and 6th amendment rights
Medina v California
SCOTUS upheld CA statute that created presumption of competence
Burden of proving IST is on the party raising the issue
- standard is preponderance of the evidence
Riggins v Nevada
Riggins was forcibly medicated after he was found IST
- he wanted to stop the meds so the jury could see him unmedicated because he was raising MSO defense
SCOTUS ruled that due process rights were violated and the state needed to prove they couldn’t complete the trial with less intrusive means or that he was a safety risk
Cooper v Oklahoma
SCOTUS ruled that CST standard of clear and convincing was unconstitutional
- due process violation
- set the standard at preponderance of the evidence
United States v Greer
malingered incompetency resulted in obstruction of justice and wasted resources
- he got an enhanced sentence
Sell v United States
Dentist Sell was on trial for false insurance claims, he was found IST and he refused meds, he appealed to SCOTUS
SCOTUS laid down 4 criteria for cases involving involuntary meds:
1. seriousness of the crime
2. are the meds likely to restore?
3. are meds the least intrusive means to restore?
4. is this tx medically appropriate?
U.S. v Duhon
Duhon was ID and found IST, he learned some basic facts about trial process but his ID prevented him from making “intelligent legal decisions”
- THUS, he needed to be released or civilly committed (under the appropriate standards)
