mesg to judges chambers this mornings update ... taped and a correction to a statement on the tape ... it was hunter who just before I met judge bush the first time who said the appeals court would not hear the first appeal ... which was a false statement on his part ... it was simms who had suggested to hunter that I could in lieu ... ask for my own psychiatrist to ... evaluate ... duh .... f all ow nnn gg gg ss aiiiii ss d huh ... , it is a best practice for the court to ask the defendant open-ended questions such as: Do you know where you are? Can you tell me? Did your attorney explain to you what will happen with your case today? Did he or she tell you how criminal cases proceed? Did you know why you are here? Can you tell me? Do you know what my job is as a judge? Can you tell me? Do you know what the prosecutors job is? Can you tell me? Do you know what your attorneys job is? Can you tell me? Do you know what the jurys job is? Can you tell me? Can you tell me the difference between pleading guilty or not guilty? 2. Colloquy—Present Ability to Consult with Lawyer and Assist in Defense To determine whether the defendant’s mental condition is such that he or she lacks a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against him or her, it is a best practice for the court to ask the defendant open-ended questions such as: Do you think your attorney is on your side or on the prosecutions side? Why? Id like you to remember these three objects: (e.g., square, apple, triangle, ball, pencil, etc.). What would you do if your attorney said you should plead guilty but you didnt want to? What would you do if you wanted to plead guilty but your attorney said you shouldnt? Can you repeat the names of the three objects I asked you to remember? Do you know whether the prosecution could make you testify at trial? What do you think? Related Issues a defendant should know and be able to describe in some detail the below - to show competence - most all of these ... below are found in the ... List of Items Relevant to Competency to Stand Trial (Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry) from Melton, et al. (2007) Psychological Evaluation for the Courts: course i added some ... not many but hay i think you should be able to answer the stuff needed to know to protect yourself when it comes to ... basic understanding of your rights in law when an accused ... and when accusing ... in a court of law .. yup yup To understand his current legal situation. To understand the charges against him. To understand the facts relevant to his case. To understand the legal issues and procedures in his case. To understand legal defenses available in his behalf. To understand the dispositions, pleas, and penalties possible. To appraise the likely outcomes. To appraise the roles of defense counsel, the prosecuting attorney, the judge, the jury, the witnesses, and the defendant. To identify and locate witnesses. To relay evidence to defense counsel. To communicate relevantly with his counsel. To comprehend instructions and advice. To parse advice and make decisions after receiving advice. To transmit necessary information coherantly to his attorney; if not self-representing by right of law, and to help plan legal strategy with attorney. To follow testimony for contradictions or errors. To testify relevantly and to be cross-examined if necessary. To challenge prosecution witnesses. To tolerate stress at the trial and while awaiting trial. To refrain from irrational and unmanageable behavior during the trial. To disclose pertinent facts surrounding the alleged offense. To protect himself and utilize the legal safeguards available to him (such as presumption of competence, right to due process, right to networth finding in pre-trial proceedures. To understand role of defendant and his counsel in terms and scope of defendant has right to objectives and choice of tactics (guilty plea, not guilty plea, no coercion for specific plea, right to speedy jury trial, right to fire and hire lawyer, to lawyer of choice etc) for the attorney to follow to meet defendants objectives. cause: Faretta and ... The Sixth Amendment does not provide merely that a defense shall be made for the accused; it grants to the accused personally the right to make his defense. It is the accused, not counsel, who must be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, who must be confronted with the witnesses against him, and who must be accorded compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. Although not stated in the Amendment in so many words, the right to self-representation -- to make ones own defense personally -- is thus necessarily implied by the structure of the Amendment. [Footnote 15] The right to defend Page 422 U. S. 820 is given directly to the accused; for it is he who suffers the consequences if the defense fails. The counsel provision supplements this design. It speaks of the assistance of counsel, and an assistant, however expert, is still an assistant. The language and spirit of the Sixth Amendment contemplate that counsel, like the other defense tools guaranteed by the Amendment, shall be an aid to a willing defendant -- not an organ of the State interposed between an unwilling defendant and his right to defend himself personally. To thrust counsel upon the accused, against his considered wish, thus violates the logic of the Amendment gosh gall eeeee g eeee wiz ... can I red w/id ahhhh ahhhhh ... comp-re-henchmen ss un ss uhhhhh ... aiiii gg huh ss ss ohhhh .. www ... awwww nnn face ... book ss ss ss
Posted on: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:58:34 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015