Chapter 10 Case Law Flashcards
(13 cards)
Frye v. United States (1923)
Was it a mistake for the court to stop the test results from being used in the trial?
No, the court was right to exclude the test results because the test hadn’t been proven to be reliable and accepted by experts in the field.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow (1993)
Is the Daubert Standard ideal for keeping out junk science?
It depends on the judge’s ability to tell the difference between good science and junk science. Judges act as “gatekeepers” to make sure the scientific evidence is relevant, legally sufficient, and reliable.
Dusky v. United States (1960)
Does the right to due process include the right to a competency evaluation before trial?
Yes, a defendant must be able to understand the trial proceedings and consult with their attorney in a rational way. This is necessary to ensure due process.
Pate v. Robinson (1966)
Does the 14th Amendment guarantee the right to a hearing on competency to stand trial if there is enough doubt?
Yes, if there is enough evidence to suggest doubt about a defendant’s competence, not providing a hearing violates their 6th Amendment right to a fair trial.
Drope v. Missouri (1975)
Is being competent at the start of the trial the same as being competent during the trial?
No, the court clarified that evidence like a defendant’s irrational behavior or demeanor during the trial, as well as prior medical opinions, can help decide if a competency hearing is needed.
Godinez v. Moran (1993)
Does the 14th Amendment require a tougher test to decide if a defendant is competent to plead guilty or give up their lawyer?
No, the test for pleading guilty or giving up a lawyer is the same as the test for standing trial. The Court said there’s no need for a harder test in these situations.
Johnson v. Zerbst (1938)
Are defendants in federal criminal cases entitled to a free attorney?
Yes, under the Sixth Amendment, defendants have the right to a lawyer, and if they give up that right, it must be done knowingly; if not, the conviction can’t stand.
Medina v. California (1992)
Can a state require a defendant to prove they are incompetent to stand trial?
Yes, states can require the defendant to prove they are incompetent to stand trial.
Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996)
Can a state require a defendant to prove incompetence by clear and convincing evidence?
No, the “clear and convincing” standard is unconstitutional because it makes it too easy to wrongly say someone is competent when they might not be.
Jackson v. Indiana (1972)
Can a person be held as incompetent to stand trial for an indefinite amount of time?
No, defendants can only be held for a reasonable time to see if they can become competent to stand trial, and some were held longer than their potential sentence if found guilty.
Sell v. United States (2003)
Can the government force a mentally ill defendant to take antipsychotic drugs to make them fit for trial on serious but nonviolent charges?
Yes, but only if the drugs are safe, won’t hurt the fairness of the trial, and are needed for the trial to happen.
AKE v. Oklahoma (1985)
Does the Constitution require a poor defendant to get psychiatric help if their mental health is in question for the trial?
Yes, if the defendant’s sanity is a key issue in the trial, the state must provide a psychiatrist if the defendant can’t afford one.
