Legal Standards Flashcards
M’Naghten rule
Insanity Defense
1) Nature and quality of the act OR
2) Knowledge that the act was wrong
ALI rule
Insanity Defense - Moral Penal Code Rule
1) Unable to appreciate the criminality of the conduct OR
2) Unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law
Because of a mental disease or defect
Moral Penal Code Rule
The ALI insanity defense
Dusky Standard
Competency
1) a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him
2) sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding
Frye Standard
Expert witness
“sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs”
Daubert Standard
Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence
1) Judge is gatekeeper for expert testimony
2) Relevance and Reliability
3) Conclusions must be derived using the scientific method
4) Illustrative factors: Whether the theory or technique employed by the expert is generally accepted in the scientific community;
Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication;
Whether it can be and has been tested;
Whether the known or potential rate of error is acceptable; and
Whether the research was conducted independent of the particular litigation or dependent on an intention to provide the proposed testimony
Standard to withdraw a guilty plea
Fair and just reason to withdraw the plea
Durham Rule
The Product test
provides the defendant is not “criminally responsible if his unlawful act is the product of a mental disease or defect.”
Irresistible Impulse Test
1887 case of Parsons v. State. The Alabama Court stated that even though the defendant could tell right from wrong, he was subject to “the duress of such mental disease [that] he had… lost the power to choose between right and wrong” and that “his free agency was at the time destroyed,” and thus, “the alleged crime was so connected with such mental disease, in the relation of cause and effect, as to have been the product of it solely.”
Testamentary Capacity in California
Civil code 6100.5(a). Or maybe probate code
Must understand:
1) Nature of testamentary act
2) Nature and situation of their property
3) Relation to people likely to be affected by the will
Medical consent in California (includes to give consent or refuse consent for tx)
Probate code 813:
Must be able to do all:
1) Respond knowingly and intelligently to queries about that medical treatment.
2) Participate in that treatment decision by means of a rational thought process.
3) Understand the seriousness of their medical problem, the nature of the tx recommended, probable benefits/risks/consequences of tx vs no tx, and nature and risks of alternative tx
Sell Criteria
1) Serious crime
2) medication is both substantially likely to render the defendant competent to stand trial and substantially unlikely to have side effects that will interfere significantly with the defendant’s ability to assist counsel in conducting a trial defense.
3) any alternative, less‐intrusive treatments are unlikely to achieve substantially the same results
4) administration of the drugs is in the patient’s best medical interest
Standard of proof for insanity in federal courts
Clear and convincing evidence. (18 U.S. Code § 17)
Standard for releasing someone from hospitalization after being declared not guilty d/t insanity
No longer substantially dangerous to people OR to property (18 U.S. Code § 4243)
Competent to represent self
Voluntary and intelligent (Indiana v. Edwards)
Know the risks of representing self (Faretta)
Trial must appear fair (not look like a circus) (Indiana v. Edwards)
