Other Criminal Comps Flashcards
What is the focus of a comp to consent to search & seizure?
The focus is on whether or not the consent was voluntary (as opposed to coerced).
A search is reasonable when a person voluntarily consents. 4th Am prevents unreasonable search & seizures and requires search based on probable cause.
What is the issue in Brown v Mississippi?
*comp to waive 5th Am
A defendant’s involuntary confession extracted by police violence cannot be entered as evidence. Violates due process clause of the 14th.
What’s the issue in Miranda v Arizona?
*comp to waive 5th
Statements made during police interrogation or only admissible if defendant was informed of right to counsel before and during questioning, and right against self-incrimination.
Statements are not admissible unless defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived rights
What’s the issue in Colorado v Connelly?
*comp to waive 5th
Connelly‘s statements were not coerced by police (but rather his psychosis). and are therefore admissible and do not violate due process
What should we assess for in a comp to waive fifth amendment eval?
Evals should be person- centered and consider situational factors (e.g. intox, ID, SMI, police bx) that would help court understand things that influenced confession.
Knowing - did they understand Miranda? Did they understand the implications of waving their rights? What choices did they think they had at the time?
Intelligently - Ability to use the info about rights to make a rational and self-interested decision
Voluntary - Focus on things that might make the defendant vulnerable to suggestion and coercion such as low IQ and immaturity.
When is someone competent to enter a plea?
When they have done so knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. They must understand the nature of the charge, the penalties associated, the rights waived, and the implications of the waiver.
Voluntary - consider traits or disorders that might make the defendant more vulnerable to suggestion or influence
What’s the issue in Sieling v Eyman?
Ninth district court held that CST and comp to plead guilty are distinct capacities. Being CST is not the same as being comp to plead guilty.
Largely overturned by Godinez
What’s the issue in Brady v US?
SCOTUS said sentencing discounts and threats of the DP are not coercion. Fear of the consequences of taking or not taking a plea is not the same as being coerced, particularly if they were able rationally weigh the adv and disadv of going to trial v accepting a plea.
What’s the issue in Faretta v CA?
SCOTUS held criminal defendant has constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves. Means counsel cannot be forced upon defendant even if they lack technical knowledge
Even if def is acting to their own detriment with pro se, the value of free choice is more worthy of constitutional protection. Court didn’t lay out what constituted competence to waive counsel, but Godinez said voluntary and knowing + CST = comp to waive attorney
Edwards v Indiana
SCOTUS held defendants who are CST and choose to waive counsel can still be forced to work with it an attorney if they “suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves.”
Basically ignores Godinez and does not provide more concrete guidance
What do we assess in a comp to waive attorney eval?
Perform a standard competency evaluation and ask questions about whether the defendant is aware of the disadvantages of proceeding pro se, reasons for wanting to do so, whether defendant understand tasks an attorney performs.
*remember, Faretta says lack of technical knowledge or inability to launch a defense is not a reason to deny a pro se claim
What should comp to waive insanity defense evals address in Whalem jurisdictions?
Focus only on whether weight of evidence points to viable sanity defense.
In Whalem jurisdictions, court can impose sanity defense if it is likely to succeed.
What should the focus of a comp to waive sanity defense be in Frendak jurisdictions?
Waiver must be knowing and voluntary; assess factors addressed in Frendak (e.g., stigma, longer confinement, loss of legal rights, better tx in prison v hosp, loss of legal rights as MI, crime was political/religious act and not insanity)
What are the general abilities needed to be a competent witness?
Ability to observe event, ability to remember event, ability to communicate that memory, ability to decipher truth from lie, ability to understand obligation to tell truth
What should we consider in comp to testify evals?
Age, IQ, cognitive functioning, ability to communicate, memory, suggestibility, moral development
