Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003), is a decision in which the United States Supreme Court imposed stringent limits on the right of a lower court to order the forcible administration of antipsychotic medication to a criminal defendant who had been determined to be incompetent to stand trial for the sole purpose of making them competent and able to be tried.
United States v. Binion, 132 F. App'x 89 (8th Cir. 2005), [1] is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit applied two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, United States v.
Constitutional law of the United States; Overview; Articles; Amendments; History; Judicial review; Principles; Separation of powers; Individual rights; Rule of law
The Competency Screening Test was developed by researchers at the Harvard Laboratory of Community Psychiatry in 1971. The test uses 22 fill in the blank style questions such as "If the jury finds me guilty, I will _____." Each answer is given a score of 0 (incompetent), 1 (uncertain competence), or 2 (competent).
The 8th Circuit — the same appeals court that decided Vandevender's case — agreed with Wright on appeal, finding that the officials had simply "predicted incorrectly." Hodges' claim failed. A ...
Affirming a criminal defendant's constitutional right to have a competency evaluation before proceeding to trial, and setting the standard for determination of such competence. BOR, 14th 1966 Pate v. Robinson: A hearing about competency to stand trial is required under the due process clause of the Constitution of the United States. [2] BOR ...
Case history; Prior: 271 F.2d 385 (8th Cir. 1959): Subsequent: 295 F.2d 743 (8th Cir. 1961): Holding; The competency standard for standing trial: whether the defendant has "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding" and a "rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him."
Texas, 570 U.S. 178 (2013) The Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination does not protect an individual's refusal to answer questions asked by law enforcement before the individual has been arrested or given the Miranda warning. A witness cannot invoke the privilege by simply standing mute; the witness must expressly invoke it.