Other competencies Flashcards
Whalem v U.S
DC federal court ruled that a trial judge could impose NGRI defense if likely to succeed
- later overturned this decision in U.S. v Marble in 1991
North Carolina v Alford
Alford pleaded guilty to 2nd degree murder to avoid the death penalty
SCOTUS ruled his plea was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily
- defendants may waive their right to trial and plead guilty while also protesting their innocence so they can avoid a harsher sentence
Seiling v Eyman
this decision as later overturned BUT at the time it held that the standard for pleading guilty was HIGHER than that for CST
Faretta v California
person can knowingly and intelligently waive their right to counsel and still be incompetent to defend themselves
Constitutional right to go PRO SE
Frendak v U.S.
involved the right to waive NGRI defense
SCOTUS cited Faretta such that defendant should be able to play a role in creating their defense
- can waive NGRI defense if they are competent to do so
- court cited several reasons a person might do this such as indefinite commitment and stigma of SMI
U.S. v Marble
Overturned Whalem v U.S 1976
- allowed to refuse NGRI defense, even if it’s viable because it’s a FINITE sentence
Godinez v Moran
Moran shot and killed 4 ppl and then tried to shoot himself
- he waived right to counsel because he didn’t want mitigating factors presented
- he then pled guilty
SCOTUS held that CST = competency to plead guilty
- don’t need 2 different evals but should inquire about knowledge of the rights one is waiving
Indiana v Edwards
SCOTUS ruled that states could have different standards for CST and PRO SE competency because there is a gray area
