Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
30 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Long v State of GA 1868
|
Long v State of GA 1868 Court did not see need for special jury for insanity plea
|
|
|
Brown v State of GA 1960
|
Brown v State of GA 1960 Understands nature & object of proceedings, rightly comprehends own condition in reference to the proceedings, & can render assistance to his attorney based upon the demands of the case.
|
|
|
Dusky v US 1960
|
Dusky v US 1960 Has sufficient present ability to consult with his attorney to a reasonable rationable degree and has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings
|
|
|
Pate v Robinson 1966
|
Pate v Robinson 1966 Court should recognize when competency is an issue and should hold a hearing on its own motion. 14th Amendment
|
|
|
Bacon v State of GA 1966
|
Bacon v State of GA 1966 Defendant may be called for cross examination in a comptency hearing but cannot be asked about guilt or innocence.
|
|
|
Long v State of GA 1868
|
Long v State of GA 1868 Court did not see need for special jury for insanity plea
|
|
|
Brown v State of GA 1960
|
Brown v State of GA 1960 Understands nature & object of proceedings, rightly comprehends own condition in reference to the proceedings, & can render assistance to his attorney based upon the demands of the case.
|
|
|
Dusky v US 1960
|
Dusky v US 1960 Has sufficient present ability to consult with his attorney to a reasonable rationable degree and has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings
|
|
|
Pate v Robinson 1966
|
Pate v Robinson 1966 Court should recognize when competency is an issue and should hold a hearing on its own motion. 14th Amendment
|
|
|
Bacon v State of GA 1966
|
Bacon v State of GA 1966 Defendant may be called for cross examination in a comptency hearing but cannot be asked about guilt or innocence.
|
|
|
Wilson v US 1968
|
Wilson v US 1968 Amnesia per se does not equal incompetence. Main question is if defendant can receive a fair trial despite amnesia.
|
|
|
Lingo v State of GA 1968
|
Lingo v State of GA 1968 Court can explore competency before an attorney has been appointed and expert/non-expert witnesses can testify.
|
|
|
Jackson v IN 1972
|
Jackson v IN 1972 Cannot hold ISTs indefinately. Must ask if defendant can be restored in the foreseeable future. Must civilly commit or release. Equal protection.
|
|
|
Drope v MO 1975
|
Drope v MO 1975 Issue of competency can be raised at any time.
|
|
|
Crawford v State of GA 1977
|
Crawford v State of GA 1977 Cannot question defendant or witness on guilt or innocence during a special plea of insanity trial.
|
|
|
Martin v State of GA 1978
|
Martin v State of GA 1978 Court cannot accept guilty plea while competency is being determined.
|
|
|
Banks v State of GA 1980
|
Banks v State of GA 1980 Capability to assist one's attorney and willingness to assist are not same issue. Inability to remember is not incompetency.
|
|
|
Smalls v State of GA 1980
|
Smalls v State of GA 1980 Issue of comptency is the same before, during, and after trial.
|
|
|
Estelle v Smith 1981
|
Estelle v Smith 1981 Must inform client of rights and limits to confidentiality before pretrial evaluation.
|
|
|
Aldridge v State of GA 1981
|
Aldridge v State of GA 1981 Amnesia is not per se incomptency. For a fair trial consider 5 points.
|
|
|
Alanson v Sate of GA 1981
|
Alanson v Sate of GA 1981 Confirms Brown: Defendant must be aware of charges, aware of their consequences, and be able to communicate with attorney
|
|
|
Henderson v Sate of GA 1981
|
Henderson v Sate of GA 1981 Lay witnesses can give testimony and experts need not be board certified psychiatrists.
|
|
|
Baker v State of GA 1982
|
Baker v Sate of GA 1982 Court must check comptency issue and when it fails the State has burden of proof to show competency at time of trial ex post facto.
|
|
|
Godfry v Francis 1983
|
Godfry v Francis 1983 Attorney does not have the right to attend a competency hearing. Examiner need not advise defendant of rights due to Miranda.
|
|
|
Ingram v Sate of GA 1984
|
Ingram v Sate of GA 1984 In rebuttle phase if defense introduces psychiatric testimony the action constitutes a waiver of 5th Amendment rights.
|
|
|
Almond v State of GA 1986
|
Almond v State of GA 1986 Inappropriate for State to call defendant's attorney at competency hearing.
|
|
|
Newman v State of GA 1988
|
Newman v State of GA 1988 Finding of IST raises presumption of incompetence. Finding of restored competency raises presumption of comptence.
|
|
|
Godinez v Moran 1993
|
Godinez v Moran 1993 Once found competent you are competent for all aspects of trial. Waiver of rights should be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
|
|
|
DHR v Drust 1994
DHR v Long 1996 |
DHR v Drust 1994 State hospital must accept brain injured clients.
DHR v Long 1996 GA Superior Court has authority to civilly commit a pre-trial detainee who is IST if executed under Title 37-3 |
|
|
Cooper v OK 1996
|
Cooper v OK 1996 Prepoderance of the evidence is highest degree to which a defendant can be held.
|
