i cant stand low brows ... I mean ... really ... what could a shrink possibly ask me ... that I cant answer ... you know ... the appeals court judge also got this info ... along with simms authentic ... signature and therefore lying pseudo shrink ... report ... and of course not to forget rules of evidence 901, 902 ... plus plus add infinitum ... yup ... maybe I should write a forensic shrink and ask them to see if ... I need to answer each question below ... and on tape .. ... or maybe if I should read each question and answer it on tape ... and are there any other ... questions ... that are pertinent to competency ... matters ... like do you have a problem with ... hmm your??? hmmm lawyer ... not mine cause ... he wont ... introduce authenticated evidence of attempted murder by poisoning for theft by extortion under color of law .... seen in public documents signed statements ... and authentic and authenticable ... documents and he wont subpoena witnesses ... some friendly some hostile ... and he wont look at laws ... said so on video ... like evidence rules ... and he wont impeach pseudo shrink .... cause ... authenticated documents already ... cant be dubious ... eh ... or the authenticity of such documents ... upon due diligence on hunter part ... and he wont pick up the phone to call witnesses that say gov got property of mine which passed darpa ... tho I did ... and he wont acknowledge simms said his signature was authentic ... or introduce the tape I have where he tells me he toll hunter ... which would impeach the shrink prevarications in her report .. cause simms signature is under the statement that gov got property of mine ... and I was seized illegally ... but no remedy yet ... like property ... investigation return ... ss sss ss sss ss sss ... like no money for pain and suffering lost time destruction of printing company slander libel and attempted poisoning cause not accidental ... seen by the lies entered into court public documents all along ... then ... now ... yeah that might be an issue I might present ... but other than that .. what could the doctor possibly ask me ... from the below ... did I miss anything??? this is what judge bush and the appeals court judges got too ... and tho some answers are a little smart alec ... cause done for showing simms ... and hunter ... and then for the court after showing them .. such too ... really thou if I cant change others signatures ... you know on authentic documents ... and I can answer all the below ... does anyone want to camcord such ... or any other questions ... you know been waiting for that too. with camcorder and laws ... and documents ... heck I can even show ... my defense Is ready to go to a jury ... and I present pseudo shrink and her prevarications to begin ... and all the other pre-court-due process breaches ... along with prior attempted murder by poisoning thru theft by extortion under color of law ... all all criterion ... met ... evidenced ... beyond any doubt ... just ... ask a jury before I get ... murdered by poisoning and lies and slander ... easily provable to be such ... to a jury ... no doubts about it! yup anything I missed I would be glad to add ... and answer .. on camcorder ... for court judge bush on the morrow 9-11-14 The adversarial system (or adversary system) is a legal system used in the common law countries where two advocates represent their parties positions before an impartial person or group of people, usually a jury or judge, who attempt to determine the truth of the case.[1][2][3] It is in contrast to the inquisitorial system used in some civil law systems (i.e. those deriving from Roman law or the Napoleonic code) where a judge, or group of judges investigates the case. The adversarial system is the two-sided structure under which criminal trial courts operate that pits the prosecution against the defense. Justice is done when the most effective adversary is able to convince the judge or jury that his or her perspective on the case is the correct one. -------------- dc competency laws dcdecoded.org/IV/24/5A/ (2) A defendant who is otherwise entitled to pretrial release shall not be involuntarily confined or taken into custody solely because the issue of the defendant’s competence has been raised and an examination or treatment has been ordered, unless the court determines that the defendant may be committed as an inpatient for a full competence examination pursuant to § 24-531.03(e) or for competence treatment pursuant to § 24-531.05. /24-531.02/ the missing already is looking good! § 24-531.01 Definitions. (1) “Competence” means that a defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with his or her lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and has a rational, as well as a factual, understanding of the proceedings against him or her. Á (2) “Court” or “Superior Court” means the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Á (2A. “DDS” means the Department on Disability Services. Á (3) “Defendant” means a defendant in a criminal case or a respondent in a transfer proceeding. Á (4) “DMH” means the Department of Mental Health. Á (5) “Incompetent” means that, as a result of a mental disease or defect, a defendant does not have sufficient present ability to consult with his or her lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or does not have a rational, as well as a factual, understanding of the proceedings against him or her. Á § 24-531.02 Competence to proceed–generally. (2) A defendant who is otherwise entitled to pretrial release shall not be involuntarily confined or taken into custody solely because the issue of the defendant’s competence has been raised and an examination or treatment has been ordered, unless the court determines that the defendant may be committed as an inpatient for a full competence examination pursuant to § 24-531.03(e) or for competence treatment pursuant to § 24-531.05. § 24-531.03 Competence examinations. (a) At any time after the prosecutor moves for a transfer from the Family Court to the Criminal Division of the Superior Court or charges a criminal offense by complaint, information, or indictment, either party may request, or the court on its own may order, that the defendant be examined to determine the defendant’s competence. Á (b) When the issue of a defendant’s competence has been raised, the court shall order a preliminary screening examination before ordering a full competence examination pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Á (c) (1) A preliminary screening examination shall be performed either in the courthouse or on an outpatient basis by a psychiatrist or psychologist affiliated with the Department of Mental Health. Á (2) The court shall schedule a return date or time for the defendant as early as possible following the order for the preliminary screening examination issued pursuant to subsection (b) of this section. In no case shall the return date be more than 3 business days after the order if the defendant is not released and no more than 5 business days after the order if the defendant is released. Á (3) The examination shall be completed and a report submitted to the court in advance of the return date or time. The report shall indicate whether the defendant is competent, incompetent, or whether further evaluation is needed. Á (4) The court shall consider the report of the preliminary screening examination, any arguments made by the parties, and any other information available to the court, and shall either: shall consider yup shall consider ... any arguments made by the parties and any other information available to the court ... bingo video of pseudo shrink and ... evidenciary hearing ... and depose and cross examine ... first! any arguments made by the parties, and any other information available to the court, and shall either: any arguments made by the parties, and any other information available to the court, and shall either: any arguments made by the parties, and any other information available to the court, and shall either: any arguments made by the parties, and any other information available to the court, and shall either: and punkster started at o4 ... figures .... dcdecoded.org/24-531.03/ cause everyone has a right to controvert ... slander and libel ... and that is why there is on the form ... a check box for evidenciary hearing ... that demeo had checked ... that parks said didnt happen ... that I also said ... didnt happen that also happens to be violation when they check that it did or was waived ... nope never waived! any arguments made by the parties, and any other information available to the court, and shall either: I think they may have a problem with ... preponderance of proof ... since I have a pretty solid record ... on the record ... yup real solid ... but not dem ss ss ss burden of proof on ... dem ss ss ss ... AND a defendant is presumed ... competent ... ergo ... show breach of presumption ... on the record ... and they cant! § 24-531.04 Initial competence determination. (a) (1) A hearing to determine competence of a defendant shall be set: (A) No more than 30 days from the date the competence examination is ordered for a defendant who is detained or committed for an inpatient examination; and (B) No more than 45 days from the date the competence examination is ordered for a defendant who is released and ordered to participate in an outpatient examination. (2) On its own motion or the motion of one of the parties, and for good cause shown, the court may extend the time for the hearing by not more than 15 days. bingo b a and b b and b c ... and bd is perjury to be scene! (b) A defendant is presumed to be competent. Incompetence must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. The burden of proof is on the party asserting incompetence. The court may call its own witnesses and conduct its own inquiry. mentalcompetency.org/model/model-sec-I.html F. Questions Specific to Adjudicative Competence The distinguishing feature of a competence evaluation is the assessment of the functional abilities needed to proceed with criminal adjudication. To make such an assessment, the psychiatrist asks questions that will lead to a determination of whether competence-related abilities are sufficiently present. Bonnie182 has characterized these abilities as falling into two key functional domains: competence to assist counsel and decisional competence. Competence to assist counsel encompasses the defendants abilities to understand criminal charges, the implications of being a defendant, the adversarial nature of criminal proceedings, and the role of defense counsel. Competence to assist also includes the defendants ability to work with and relate pertinent information to defense counsel. Decisional competence refers to the ability for the defendant to participate autonomously in making important decisions that arise in the course of adjudication. Among these decisions are whether to testify, whether to plead guilty, and, if the case goes to trial, what strategy should be used. Examinations of adjudicative competence are concerned with defendants case-specific capacity to proceed with criminal adjudication, as distinguished from their general legal knowledge, actual current knowledge about the case, or willingness to proceed with adjudication. A defendants ignorance of some aspects of how the legal system works, the charges faced, or possible penalties does not necessarily imply incompetence. The defendant may simply not have been provided this information, but may be able to incorporate and use information in making decisions after being told these things. To distinguish mere ignorance from incapacity to learn, the psychiatrist may use structured interviews (discussed later) or other teaching and retesting approaches that involve instruction on factual legal matters. In cases in which the psychiatrist has learned that a defendant has had problems in collaborating with defense counsel, the psychiatrist should try to learn whether the defendant could work with an attorney and participate in defense planning, but has chosen not to do so for reasons not related to mental illness, mental retardation, or developmental limitations. Assessing and documenting a defendants functional status usually requires asking specific questions that systematically explore the defendants general knowledge about criminal proceedings, his understanding of matters specific to his legal case, and his ability to relate to defense counsel. Areas that the psychiatrist typically assesses during an interview include the defendants: 1. Colloquy—Rational and Factual Understanding of Proceedings 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 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 collating and correlating ... stuff ... for the morning ... to go with me if they want me to come in ... and of course ... I shall bring the contract too ... plus plus ... paper and more paper ... needless to say I shall ask if I should drive or take the metro ... if they have any preferences or suggestions - since I have simply sat it out and not participated ... before ... until you know people sign that they have read ... others signatures ... and hay ... maybe called them??? ... you know to see if and what who and whyfore ... fabrications ... cause ... I can prove my statements before a jury of peers ... you bet I can ... I dont! (1) experts shall first consider factors related to the issue of whether the defendant meets the criteria for competence to proceed (e.g. competency to stand trial); that is, whether the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether the defendant has a rational, as well as factual, understanding of the pending proceedings. --- undt ---- b. Competency to Stand Trial – A person shall be considered mentally competent to stand trial on criminal charges if the proofs shall establish: (1) That the defendant has the mental capacity to appreciate his presence in relation to time, place and things; and appreciate - love presence - i time - life place - usa things - money for meter for van ... gosh i love life here in the usa and the fact that i have money for the meter for the van, parked by the courthouse in washington dc, on the eastern seaboard of the united states at circa 2:30 pm on september 4th ... hmmm is it mid atlantic or eastern standard or should i use GMT: Greenwich Mean Time - World Time / Time in every ... wwp.greenwichmeantime/ \l ⦁ webcache.googleusercontent/search?q=cache:hbHqllOCpQYJ:wwp.greenwichmeantime/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us ⦁ /search?biw=1093&bih=538&q=related:wwp.greenwichmeantime/+greenwich+mean+time&tbo=1&sa=X&ei=Z0PyU9SlJMiJogSJ4IKABg&ved=0CCEQHzAA Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). What time is it anywhere in the world? What is GMT? Complete guide to time and time zones; summer time and daylight-saving ... Time Zones - Time zone conversion - Eastern Time - What is GMT? Greenwich Mean Time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_Mean_Time \l ⦁ webcache.googleusercontent/search?q=cache:NsxPlLUENBgJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_Mean_Time+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us ⦁ /search?biw=1093&bih=538&q=related:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_Mean_Time+greenwich+mean+time&tbo=1&sa=X&ei=Z0PyU9SlJMiJogSJ4IKABg&ved=0CCwQHzAB Wikipedia Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) originally referred to the mean solar time at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, London, which later became adopted as a global ... Western European Time - Royal Observatory, Greenwich - UTC±00:00 time ... at rm 210 - @ 500 Indiana Ave NW #6000, Washington, DC 20001 Superior Court of D.C., Address --- also see exhibit of plaque for martial arts teaching vis place space and time - expertise - (2) That his elementary mental processes are such that he comprehends: (a) That he is in a court of justice charged with a criminal offense; i hope i get back to the van ... before the quarters run out ... if i get back ... to the van ... (b) That there is a judge on the bench; somebody with a priest mm oo mm oo but not so tailored .... is looking stern ... and chewing gum at the same time ... looks like she has some humming machine and is whispering to the advisor who isnt and to the other guy who is putting blinders on and shoving a poster under the bench ... or is it a dai ... anyway ... over the hiss i think i can hear ... dismiss dismiss ... the lady is kind of elegant looking even tho in moo moo and that is the darnesst cleric collar i have ever seen ... yup i thing she does something like ... trier of facts kind of stuff ... and mediates the arguments of the defence advisor who isnt and the prosecutor who is waving a simms motion wildly and looks like he is trying to light the document on fire ... which i think is obstruction of justice and a fire marshal code ... oh the elegant lady also seems to have a tattoo of the us code ... and some cites ... hmm .. maybe it is just henna or cliff notes ... on the palm next to some kind of crab mallet ... her name is the Honorable Judge Bush and she is looking stern again ... mm aiiiii www aiiiiiiii ... (c) That there is a prosecutor present who will try to convict him of a criminal charge; a cabal of them specifically among others - some named - Clint Gerdine, esq. - Veronica Jennings, esq., - LShauntee Robertson, esq. - and that their role is to prosecute while upholding my due process rights in the sense that for instance they are not allowed to willfully withhold exculpatory or impeachment evidence or networth finding evidence specifically when requested from them in discovery cause in their possession - like public documents in the governments possession - cause malicious prosecutions can be so malicious that it is a criminal effort - see laws dealing with: imparting and conveying false information - withholding evidence and ubstruction of justice, see theft by extortion under color of law - number - 1 thru 7 inclusive of 2 3 4 5 and 6 - exhibit (d) That he has a lawyer who will undertake to defend him against that charge; unless depraved and unethical in breach of fiduciary responsibility who is absconding with defendants rights - for instance the right to objectives and tactics not questioned when the lawyer who questions has no legitimate role in the proceedings cause the cja rules say defendant - has a networth that upon discovery honored would show - public defender not eligible not to mention not wanted especially when there to ... in deepest darkest fashion with depravity and despicable behavior tries to steal defendants rights to fair trial - but in theory yes d would be the norm and the standard - in fact defendant has all the evidence he needs to show the lawyer is deficient in character and in adequate defense ... efforts ... tho billing the treasury as if he were in contract performance = i.e. fraud since not in good faith contract performance and that would be fraud ... against the defendant and fraud against the treasury ... cause he is supposed to be paid to uphold the law ... not to make a mockery and travesty of such ... for .. pay. ergo the creep i got is stealing from every man woman and child taxpayer - so that he can savage the Constitution - due process clause - and of course others like the 13th amendment ... plus plus. (e) That he will be expected to tell to the best of his mental ability the facts surrounding him at the time and place where the alleged violation was committed if he chooses to testify and understands the right not to testify; that he defendant does choose and has relayed facts and circumstances surounding the instant allegation - and has done so while hampered with a sabotaging defense lawyer - and has done so with the expectation that such information will be used - for impeachment and networth purposes - since the information relayed is impeachment and networth information also information dealing with the circumstances surrounding the instant allegation - and further defendant has relayed the information to the lawyer defense and some to the prosecutor and some to the court thru the clerk of the court in timely and seasonable fashion since defendant has assumed the right and the role of self representing defendant tho that has been qualified - rights to do such - with sabotaging lawyer and cabal ... seen and involved on the record - but so that the response is very clear - defendant is relaying the info - as a self representing pro se individual who is not expecting to testify is expecting to use his right to not testify but does expect the circumstances surrounding the instant allegations which he defendant provided (in pretrial proceedings and in appropriate due process format seasonably) to be used since introduce ... for defense objectives and tactics. (f) That there is or may be a jury present to pass upon evidence adduced as to guilt or innocence of such charge or, that if he should choose to enter into plea negotiations or to plead guilty, that he comprehend the consequences of a guilty plea and that he be able to knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive those rights which are waived upon such entry of a guilty plea; and defendant expects a jury trial and has asked for a speedy jury trial - this cause of right to have a jury trial is fundemental in our system of jurisprudence ... when ... requested in seasonable fashion - and when not robbed of such right and or sabotaged out of such by deficient advisors (g) That he has the ability to participate in an adequate presentation of his defense. so far has adequate documentation of less than adequate presentations of advisor who isnt ... shrink who prevericated .... prosecutor who didnt produce discovery upon request and of course judge who didnt read ... defense material entered into the record ... for finding of each fact and conclusion of law presented the court for adequate defense ... and of course a judge who took the liberty to waive defendants right to adequate presentation of defense in evidenciary hearing - and defendant filed an appeal for his defense pro se - and the appeal was won - to degree ... enough ... for adequate protection of defendant from criminal effort in criminal enterprise to aid and abet after the fact theft by extortion under color of law - all legal technical terms that defendant ... can also use and present for adequate defense ... in impeachment and networth finding terms and matters entailed in the misdemeanor trial - in which defendant is in the process of participating in ... adequately ... despite ... others inadequacies. (2) In considering the issue of competence to proceed (competency to stand trial), the examining experts shall consider and include in their report: (A) Competency to Proceed or Competency to Stand Trial evaluations evaluated the defendant’s capacity to: (i) appreciate the charges or allegations against the defendant; the charges is a misdemeanor charge with allegations of possession of cds. (ii) Appreciate the range and nature of possible penalties, if applicable, that may be imposed in the proceedings against the defendant; up to one year in prison if - due process rights are not sabotaged so that defendant is robbed of right to due process - proceedures which are defined and delineated in law - cause if such occurs - then the abuse means much more penalty which would not be legit penalty - inclusive of torture and ankang - see slavery and involuntary servitude and attempted murder by poisoning and lying in wait - (iii) Understand the adversary nature of the legal process; adversary in terms of citing laws and presentation of facts and legal supporting arguments for adjudication thru findings by the triers of fact judge and if/when invoked jury ... (iv) Disclose to counsel facts pertinent to the proceedings at issue; also known as ability to aid in defense - be they facts of law or evidence causal facts in terms of the circumstances surrounding the instant allegatios ... (v) Manifest appropriate courtroom behavior; like dont spit or hit anyone - be honest and know when to object - in terms of your honor i object ... the advisor ... isnt ... (vi) Testify relevantly ... with use of laws to support such testimony ... and with use of evidence to support such testimony - if of course not invoking the 5th ... where you dont have to testify - but still have to understand the object and nature of the court proceedings and still have a right to objectives and tactics if self representing or objectives and lawyer does tactics if ... legit lawyer .. tactics that meet the objectives .. and of course still have to be able to provide ... a defense in terms of relevant and legal ... defense with relevant and legal evidence production capacity ... yup yup ... ---------- 2 blocks from American University! English (US) · Privacy · Terms · Cookies · Advertising · More Facebook © 2014 News Feed \l https://facebook/christopher.sebastian.1884?fref=nf https://facebook/christopher.sebastian.1884?fref=nf Christopher Sebastian added 6 new photos. 28 mins · \l the things one reads while researching shrink websites - this one - I cant use - maybe hunter doh - but the others ... hay I love research already done - you know - research - and such - yup pity the guy doesnt practice around here - ah well still a good cull for the arguments and precendence setting laws cited etc - yup see if you like this one The test for competence to be executed enunciated in Justice Powell’s concurring opinion is whether the prisoner is aware of his impending execution and the reason for it. State v. Perry (Louisiana Supreme Court, 1992) The Court ruled you cannot force an inmate on death row who is incompetent to be executed, to be medicated in order to restore his competency to be executed. how about not eligible to be medicated or executed ... cause sane and just a misdemeanor wherein ... all the defendant wants is a jury to review his evidence ... which th th ugh eee ss ... seem not to wanna ... authenticate ... --- somehow my stress level is mounting ... as I re eeeee ad d ... Pate v. Robinson (US Supreme Court 1966) The Supreme Court held that the question of competency to stand trial may be raised at ANY time during the criminal proceedings. Furthermore, they held that the Court had an obligation to raise the question after being confronted with evidence that would raise a bona fide doubt as to the defendant’s competence, whether or not defense counsel requested a competency evaluation. In the Court’s opinion, failure to observe procedures adequate to protect a defendant’s right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent to stand trial is a deprivation of due process. Drope v. Missouri (US Supreme Court 1975) The Supreme Court held that any evidence of a defendant’s possible incompetence to stand trial must be addressed regardless of the stage of the proceedings. failure of the court to make further inquiry in such a situation violates due process. The court found that a number of factors may call for a competency evaluation including: (1) Evidence of a defendant’s irrational behavior; (2) The defendant’s demeanor at trial; and (3) Any prior medical opinion on the defendant’s competency. The court found that all of these factors are relevant in determining whether further inquiry is required, but that even one of the factors standing alone might, in some circumstances, be sufficient to warrant further inquiry. Cooper v. Oklahoma (US Supreme Court 1996) In regard to burden of proof for competency to stand trial, the Court ruled Oklahoma’s law that allowed the State to try a defendant who is more likely than not incompetent was unconstitutional as it violated the Due Process Clause. In other words, the State must have the burden of proof by at least preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is competent to proceed with trial. Indiana v. Edwards (US Supreme Court, 2008) The Supreme Court held that the ability for a defendant to actually represent himself and conduct his own trial is a different standard than being competent to stand trial or waive representation. That is, a trial court may determine that a defendant is competent to stand trial but not competent to represent himself and therefore force the defendant to accept representation. This decision held that the standard to represent oneself would be determined by the trial judge in each particular case. Godinez v. Moran (US Supreme Court 1993) The competency standard for a defendant to plead guilty or waive the right to counsel does not have to be higher or even different than the Dusky standard for Competency to Stand Trial. The Court held that there was no reason for the competency standard for either of those decisions to be higher than that for standing trial. This was based on the Court’s opinion that the decision to plead guilty is no more complicated than the sum total of decisions that a defendant may have to make during the course of a trial, such as whether to testify, whether to waive a jury trial, and whether to cross-examine witnesses for the prosecution. In addition, the Court held the decision to waive counsel did not require an appreciably higher level of mental functioning than the decision to waive other constitutional rights. The Court rejected the argument that a defendant who chooses to represent himself must have greater powers of comprehension, judgment and reason than would be necessary to stand trial with the aid of an attorney. The Court held that a higher standard was not necessary to ensure that a defendant is competent to represent himself, because the ability to do so has no bearing upon his competence to CHOOSE to represent himself. Simply put, the competence in question is the ability to WAIVE the right to counsel, NOT the ability to represent oneself. The court also held that finding a defendant competent is not all that is necessary before he may be permitted to enter a guilty plea or waive right to counsel. In addition, the trial court must satisfy itself that the waiver is KNOWING, INTELLIGENT, and VOLUNTARY. This case superseded Seiling v. Eyman (9th Circuit 1973), which set the standard for Competency to Plead Guilty as the reasoned choice standard. Estelle v. Smith (US Supreme Court, 1981) The U.S. Supreme Court held that information obtained in a court-ordered competency to stand trial evaluation as to the issue of future dangerousness was inadmissible at the penalty phase of a trial if the defendant had not been warned of his right to remain silent and that any statements he made could be used against him. The Court held that admission of such evidence was a violation of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and the 6th Amendment right of right to counsel since defense counsel was not informed in advance that the examination would cover the issue of future dangerousness. The Court noted that there was no distinction between the guilt and penalty phases of the trial with regard to the defendant’s rights. Furthermore, the Court noted that the defendant’s responses in an in-custody, court ordered evaluation could not be considered to have been given freely and voluntarily unless the defendant had been informed of his rights. Jackson v. Indiana (U.S. Supreme Court, 1972) The court ruled that incompetent defendants may not be committed indefinitely. A person committed to a mental hospital based solely on account of incompetency to stand trail cannot be held more than a reasonable period of time necessary to determine if they will attain competency in the future. Due process requires that the nature and duration of commitment bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed. If after a reasonable period of time it is determined it is unlikely that the defendant will regain competency, he must either be civilly committed through proceedings applicable to those not charged with a crime or be released. Failure to conform to this procedure is a violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Wilson v. U.S. (DC Circuit of Appeals, 1968) This ruling gave the judge guidelines on how to evaluate if a person with amnesia has had a fair trial. It was ruled that amnesia alone does not render a defendant incompetent to stand trial. Factors to be considered in determining competency of an amnestic defendant include the extent to which the amnesia affects the defendant’s ability to: (1) Assist counsel; (2) Testify on his own behalf; and (3) Extrinsically reconstruct the events of a case. Other considerations included; (1) The strength of the State’s case; (2) The extent to which the State assisted in the extrinsic reconstruction of events; and (3) Any other facts or circumstances which would indicate whether or not the defendant had a fair trial. North Carolina v. Alford (US Supreme Court, 1970) The Supreme Court ruling held that a guilty plea is valid if it represents a voluntary, knowing and intelligent choice among reasonable alternatives. It is not compelled within the meaning of the 5th Amendment even if it is entered to avoid a harsh penalty, such as in the case of the death penalty. Choosing to enter a best interest plea such as this is now known as an Alford Plea. Sell v. US (US Supreme Court, 2003) The Court held that medication to restore competency to stand trial for serious offenses could be administered involuntarily under certain circumstances. Because of this case, Competency to Stand Trial evaluations now often also have to offer an opinion regarding if the defendant should be forced to receive psychiatric medications based on the Sell criteria. Competency to Be Executed Landmark Cases --------------------- same guy has the different state questions - for a few states - which I answered in this thread - yup - psycholegalassessments/areas-of-expertise/competency-to-stand-trial/ ----------------- Texas Code of Criminal Procedure – Chapter 46B Incompetency To Stand Trial - Competency to Stand Trial or Fitness to Stand Trial requires that a defendant understands the nature and purpose of the legal proceedings against him and be able to effectively cooperate with counsel in his defense. To understand the proceedings, a defendant must be able to comprehend the charges against him and the penalties if convicted. He must also have some level of understanding of courtroom procedure and the functions of those who participate in it. To cooperate with counsel, he must be able to plan a legal strategy, be able to recall and relate pertinent facts and events, including his motives and actions ..., and be able to testify in his behalf and to challenge prosecution witnesses. As a forensic psychologist, Dr. Steven Gaskell’s function in Competency to Stand Trial cases is to determine whether or not a mental disorder, defect, or impairment precludes this understanding and cooperation. Psychological testing is given in competency to stand trial cases on an as needed basis, 32 mins · Like --------------- Art. 46B.003. INCOMPETENCY; PRESUMPTIONS.- Defendant is presumed to be competent to stand trial (a) A person is incompetent to stand trial if the person does not have: (1) sufficient present ability to consult with the person’s lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding; or (2) a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against the person. (b) A defendant is presumed competent to stand trial and shall be found competent to stand trial unless proved incompetent by a preponderance of the evidence. --------- and stuff like questions ------ b. Competency to Stand Trial – A person shall be considered mentally competent to stand trial on criminal charges if the proofs shall establish: (1) That the defendant has the mental capacity to appreciate his presence in relation to time, place and things; and (2) That his elementary mental processes are such that he comprehends: (a) That he is in a court of justice charged with a criminal offense; (b) That there is a judge on the bench; (c) That there is a prosecutor present who will try to convict him of a criminal charge; (d) That he has a lawyer who will undertake to defend him against that charge; (e) That he will be expected to tell to the best of his mental ability the facts surrounding him at the time and place where the alleged violation was committed if he chooses to testify and understands the right not to testify; (f) That there is or may be a jury present to pass upon evidence adduced as to guilt or innocence of such charge or, that if he should choose to enter into plea negotiations or to plead guilty, that he comprehend the consequences of a guilty plea and that he be able to knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive those rights which are waived upon such entry of a guilty plea; and (g) That he has the ability to participate in an adequate presentation of his defense. Florida (Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 2008) – Provide that in competency to stand trial evaluations (1) experts shall first consider factors related to the issue of whether the defendant meets the criteria for competence to proceed (e.g. competency to stand trial); that is, whether the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether the defendant has a rational, as well as factual, understanding of the pending proceedings. (2) In considering the issue of competence to proceed (competency to stand trial), the examining experts shall consider and include in their report: (A) Competency to Proceed or Competency to Stand Trial evaluations evaluated the defendant’s capacity to: (i) appreciate the charges or allegations against the defendant; (ii) Appreciate the range and nature of possible penalties, if applicable, that may be imposed in the proceedings against the defendant; (iii) Understand the adversary nature of the legal process; (iv) Disclose to counsel facts pertinent to the proceedings at issue; (v) Manifest appropriate courtroom behavior; (vi) Testify relevantly; and -------------- yup maybe they are trying to say im a re:tar d ... ewww ... no ... drool drool twitch twitch ... course they have to make you one ... first ... and that would only happen with no ... jury ... Ohio Chapter 2945 – 2945.371 G-3 Competency to Stand Trial - Indicates that the examiner shall file a written report with the court within 30 days after entry of a court order for evaluation, and the court shall provide copies of the report to the prosecutor and defense counsel. The competency to stand trial report shall include all of the following: The examiner’s findings and the facts in reasonable detail on which the findings are based; If the evaluation was ordered to determine the defendant’s competency to stand trial, all of the following findings or recommendations that are applicable: (a) Whether the defendant is capable of understanding the nature and objective of the proceedings against the defendant or of assisting in the defendant’s defense; (b) If the examiner’s opinion is that the defendant is incapable of understanding the nature and objective of the proceedings against the defendant or of assisting in the defendant’s defense, whether the defendant presently is mentally ill or mentally retarded and, if the examiner’s opinion is that the defendant presently is mentally retarded, whether the defendant appears to be a mentally retarded person subject to institutionalization by court order; and no finding of each fact and conclusion of law ... for a jury of peers to ... re:vie ewwwwww ... garble garble goo bill goo bill gobble gobble ... goebb-el-ss The adversarial system (or adversary system) is a legal system used in the common law countries where two advocates represent their parties positions before an impartial person or group of people, usually a jury or judge, who attempt to determine the truth of the case.[1][2][3] It is in contrast to the inquisitorial system used in some civil law systems (i.e. those deriving from Roman law or the Napoleonic code) where a judge, or group of judges investigates the case. The adversarial system is the two-sided structure under which criminal trial courts operate that pits the prosecution against the defense. Justice is done when the most effective adversary is able to convince the judge or jury that his or her perspective on the case is the correct one. -----\l (13 photos) personally i think ... hmm ... i think ... hmm ... yup ... 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. ----------------
Posted on: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 01:22:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015