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.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (in case citations, 8th Cir.) is a United States federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the following United States district courts: Eastern District of Arkansas
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).
First, it points to a difficult issue in competency evaluations. Although the standards for competency were set forth in Dusky v. United States, [5] much of the standard remains ambiguous and is not clearly defined. Only one common principle is clear in forensic evaluations, that forensic evaluators cannot reach a finding independent of the ...
The latest test to landmark civil rights law is a ‘travesty for democracy’ that could head to the Supreme Court ... a three-judge panel with the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit upheld ...
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 ...
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision comes a week before the deadline set by the judge for the state to adopt a new map of legislative districts. Last month, U.S. District Chief Judge ...
In the Eighth Circuit, the court rejected Bucklew's facial challenge, as well as turned down his as-applied challenge as given but allowed Bucklew's case to be reheard if he could demonstrate that there was a feasible alternative, as per Baze. [9] Prior to the rehearing, the Supreme Court concluded in Glossip v.