Competency 1
Dusky v United States
Having a basic knowledge of one’s charges is NOT sufficient for competency to stand trial
SCOTUS delineated the test for competency should be “whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding – and whether he had a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.
Medina v California
Placing the burden of proof (incompetence) on the defendant IS NOT a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
presumed a defendant was competent unless it could be proved otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence
Defendants are constitutionally entitled to a hearing on the issue of competence to stand trial
Rex v Arnold
Recognized the legal standard known as the “wild beast test”
United States v Brawner
Defined a new standard for the test of insanity, by also considering the capacity to appreciate wrongfulness or conform conduct to the requirements of the law (not just the Product Rule).
ALI standard
Wilson v United States
Permanent retrograde amnesia DOES NOT automatically render a defendant incompetent to stand trial
A loss of memory should bar prosecution only when its presence would in fact be crucial to the construction and presentation of a defense and hence essential to the fairness and accuracy of the proceedings.
Riggins V Nevada
A person standing trial CANNOT be forced to take antipsychotic medication (it must first be determined to be medically appropriate and the least intrusive option) during the trial
SCOTUS did not explicitly address whether a person could be forcibly medicated for the purpose of maintaining competency
Seiling v Eyman
Being competent to stand trial is NOT sufficient for considering competency to plead guilty
Reversed by Godinez v Medina
McNaughton
Established framework for the legal test of insanity (M'Naghten Rules). Specifically, (1) Insanity is for the jury to decide, and (2) is determined by an appreciation of right versus wrong at the time of the alleged offense.
After the death of the prime minister's secretary
Edney v Smith
Insanity defendants CANNOT preclude prosecution from calling expert witnesses who may have been retained by the defense
Jackson v Indiana
A defendant CANNOT be committed indefinitely if they are found incompetent to proceed and unrestorable
Cooper v Oklahoma
Preponderance of the evidence IS the appropriate standard for determining a defendant's competence to stand trial
Indiana v Edwards
Constitution does not forbid States from insisting upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to stand trial but who suffer from mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves
Durham v United States
The M'Naghten Rule is too narrow, and modern criteria should also consider whether or not the criminal act was the product of a mental disease or defect.
Also shifts the burden to the prosecution to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt
People v Patterson
Placing the burden of proof on the defendant to show extreme emotional disturbance DOES NOT violate his due process rights
Drope V Missouri
A judge SHOULD interrupt criminal proceedings if a defendant appears to be incompetent
SCOTUS further stated that a correct course of action would be to suspend trial or court proceedings at any point, if competency was questioned, to allow for an evaluation
United States v Duhon
Rote memorization is not enough to demonstrate competency (emphasizes the importance of rational understanding)
Ake v Oklahoma
Indigent defendants are guaranteed psychiatric assistance under the Sixth Amendment for the purpose of an insanity defense, or for mitigating circumstances in a capital case
MacDonald v United States
Defined “mental disease or defect” – “Includes any abnormal condition of the mind which substantially affects mental or emotional processes and substantially impairs behavior controls
Frendak v United States
A defendant with mental illness (whose sanity at the time of the alleged events is in question) CAN refuse to raise an insanity defense
Estelle V Smith
Information gathered as part of a pretrial psychiatric evaluation is NOT admissible during sentencing
Sell v United States
Antipsychotic drugs CAN be forced on a defendant (facing serious criminal charges) to restore competence to stand trial
Foucha v Louisiania
An insanity acquittee MUST be BOTH mentally ill and dangerous for a state to justify continued hospitalization
Washington v United States
Experts CANNOT testify to the ultimate issue in a sanity case.
Jones v United States
NGRI acquittees CAN be subject to involuntary and indefinite commitment