US CST One-Liners Flashcards
Dusky v. U.S. (1960)
“test must be whether the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding - and whether he has a rational as well factual understanding of the proceedings against him.”
Pate v. Robinson (1966)
SCOTUS: trial court’s failure to hold competency hearing when there was sufficient evidence to do so, even though not specifically requested by defense, violated due process under 14A
Wilson v. U.S. (1968)
DC COA: amnesia for the time of the crime didn’t per se render defendant IST. Instead have to consider factors case-by-case that would be able to have fair trial
Jackson v. Indiana (1972)
SCOTUS: equal protection violated when he was held to more lenient commitment standard and higher release bar than uncharged persons. Can’t hold a defendant indefinitely due to IST or else violates due process. Have to hold reasonable amount of time to determine restorability, and if not likely restorable, either civilly commit or release.
Drope v. Missouri (1975)
SCOTUS: Question of CST can be raised at any time during proceedings, not just before trial. Whenever there’s sufficient doubt for a variety of reasons.
Estelle v. Smith (1981)
SCOTUS: Smith not informed of right to remain silent + statements in CST eval could be used against him later, so statements couldn’t be used against him in sentencing phase. Violated 5A right against self-incrimination.
Godinez v. Moran (1993)
SCOTUS: If defendant CST, then competent to make all choices pertinent, such as waiving right to counsel, against testifying, against confronting accusers, etc. However, such waivers must be “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.”
Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996)
SCOTUS: Highest burden of proof state could require was defendant prove incompetence by preponderance of evidence
Medina v. California (1992)
SCOTUS: Burden of proof on defendant claiming incompetence. No reason it should be on state to prove competence.
Riggins v. Nevada (1992)
SCOTUS: Forced administration of meds, gotta show medically appropriate, essential for sake of safety, and least intrusive means of treatment
Riggins Ommission
Said maybe to restore competence, but didn’t explicit say if solely to restore competence appropriate
Four Factors for Sell (4.3 + 1 bonus)
- Gov’t has interest in prosecuting: seriousness of charges, time served, future psychiatric confinement that would diminish risk
- Proposed medication “substantially likely” to render defendant competent w/o causing sfx that would render him unable to assist
- Least restrictive tx to restore competence
- Whether medically appropriate - in best medical interest
BONUS: Should look for other reasons first, such as dangerousness/medical necessity, as medical experts probably more suited to give appropriate judgment of that
Indiana v. Davis (2008)
SCOTUS: Holding criminal charges over permanently incompetent defendant violated due process
United States v. Dillon (1989)
6th Circuit - 1st criteria of Sell. Even though not currently dangerous otherwise, bc of seriousness of charge (threatened president), State had necessary interest in prosecuting this charge. So +invol meds.
“Substantially Likely” Standards
United States v. Gomes: 70% chance restoration
Utah v. Barzee: > 70%
New Mexico v. Cantrell (2008)
Second Sell criterion is mixture of fact & law
Evidentiary standard for all 4 Sell criteria is clear & convincing
Percentage of Restored Sell Patients
79%
Curry v. Zant (1988)
GA SC: Attorney’s failure to get competency eval (bc thought it “would be futile”) was ineffective counsel
United States v. Wayt (2001)
10th C: Even though didn’t apply in this case, personality d/o likely could be a mental disease/defect producing incompetence
United States v. Veach (1993)
W.D. Okla: Severe paranoid/antisocial/narcissistic personality d/os rendered him incompetent
Wilson 6 Factors
Ability to consult w/ lawyer
Ability to testify
How well evidence could be reconstructed, incl offense + alibi
Extent to which gov’t assisted in reconstruction
Strength of prosecution’s case
Any other factors affected fair trial
Arizona v. McClendon (1968) (2ish3ish)
AZ SC: Limited amnesia wouldn’t totally incapacitate defendant from trial. “Entitled to fair trial but not a perfect trial” and all of our memories are imperfect to some degree. Also mentioned abuse potential of allowing amnesia defenses.
Faretta v. California (1975)
SCOTUS: Do have a right to represent self, implicit in 6th A, as long as knowing/voluntary/intelligent
Indiana v. Edwards (2008)
SCOTUS: Mental illness can interfere with ability to proceed pro se.
RI SC Pro Se Considerations (6)
- Defendant’s background/education/exp/behavior at hearing
- Defendant’s contact w/ lawyers before hearing
- Defendant’s knowledge of proceedings/sentences
- Availability of standby council
- Mistreatment or coercion
- Whether defendant trying to manipulate events of the hearing
U.S. v. Greer (1998)
5th C. Feigning mental illness counts as obstruction and can be used for sentence enhancement.
