Criminal Competencies Lecture Flashcards
(28 cards)
All the following are true of competence except:
a. Competence requires an understanding of relevant information.
b. Competence is task-specific.
c. Competence is a medical judgment.
d. Competence can change over time.
e. Individuals are presumed to be competent.
c. Competence is a medical judgment.
The prevailing standard for competence to stand trial, as established by Dusky versus United States requires:
a. A good memory of the events in question.
b. Specific trial-related capacities and not just a defendant who is oriented.
c. The capacity to represent oneself without an attorney.
d. A willingness to take medication to restore competence.
e. A full factual understanding of the proceedings.
b. Specific trial-related capacities and not just a defendant who is oriented.
In the landmark case that effectively overruled Seiling versus Eyman, the court identified:
a. The appropriate standard for competence to stand trial.
b. The capacity to waive counsel requires the same level of capacity as capacity to Stand trial.
c. That the length of time of commitment of an incompetent defendant must bear a reasonable relationship to the purpose of the confinement.
d. That clear and convincing evidence is sufficient for a ruling of incompetence to stand trial.
e. That the government interests must outweigh individual rights to determine someone is incompetent to stand trial.
b. The capacity to waive counsel requires the same level of capacity as capacity to Stand trial.
According to Cooper versus Oklahoma, a defendant may be presumed competent but can apply what standard to prove innocence:
a. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
b. Clear and convincing evidence.
c. Preponderance of the evidence.
d. Cooper versus Oklahoma did not deal with that issue.
c. Preponderance of the evidence.
The two prongs of the dusky competence criteria are:
a. Rational and factual understanding of the proceedings and ability to consult with an attorney.
b. Presence of mental illness and rational and factual understanding of the proceedings.
c. Ability to consult with an attorney and willingness to cooperate.
d. Willingness to cooperate and presence of mental illness.
e. Presence of mental illness and knowledge of criminal act.
a. Rational and factual understanding of the proceedings and ability to consult with an attorney.
Who may raise the issue of a Defendants Incompetence?
a. The judge.
b. The defense attorney.
c. The prosecutor.
d. A, B or C
e. B or C
d. A, B or C
In Riggins versus Nevada, the United States Supreme Court held that:
a. Incompetent defendants can be medicated involuntarily to restore their competence.
b. An insane person may not be executed.
c. Incompetent defendants can be hospitalized indefinitely.
d. Medical appropriateness is one factor to consider in deciding whether to involuntarily medicate a pretrial defendant.
e. None of the above.
d. Medical appropriateness is one factor to consider in deciding whether to involuntarily Medicate a pretrial defendant.
The landmark case of Jackson versus Indiana established a principle that:
a. Stated that incompetent defendants can be hospitalized only for a reasonable period of time to determine whether restoration is likely.
b. Established the standards for competence to stand trial.
c. Established standards for involuntary medication administration to restore competence to stand trial, thereby reducing the length of time one could be committed as an incompetent defendant.
d. Stated that a defendant who waived certain rights must do so knowingly and voluntarily.
e. Required clear and convincing evidence for a finding of incompetence to stand trial.
a. Stated that incompetent defendants can be hospitalized only for a reasonable period of time to determine whether restoration is likely.
Defendants with amnesia:
a. Are never competent to stand trial.
b. Are always incompetent to stand trial.
c. Are presumed to be incompetent.
d. May have to stand trial if evidence can be reconstructed extrinsically.
d. May have to stand trial if evidence can be reconstructed extrinsically.
In Sell versus the United States:
a. The United States Supreme Court affirmed that defendants found incompetent to stand trial cannot be medicated over their objection.
b. The US Supreme Court held that incompetent defendants can be involuntarily medicated based on a 2 doctor review system.
c. The United States Supreme Court stated that involuntary medication to restore competence to stand trial can be permissible in limited circumstances.
d. The standard for competence to plead guilty is clear and convincing evidence.
e. The US Supreme Court stated that involuntary medication of sentenced inmates is permissible if done in the interest of prison safety.
c. The United States Supreme Court stated that involuntary medication to restore competence to stand trial can be permissible in limited circumstances.
Which of the following statements are true?
a. The minimum standard of proof for competence to stand trial is clear and convincing evidence.
b. Once found incompetent to stand trial, a defendant cannot be hospitalized for more than six months.
c. The standard for competence to plead guilty is greater than the standard for competence to stand trial.
d. The standard for competence to plead guilty is clear and convincing evidence.
e. The standard for competence to waive counsel and competence to plead guilty are the same standard.
e. The standard for competence to waive counsel and competence to plead guilty are the same standard.
Components of competence include:
a. Ability to communicate a choice.
b. Ability to understand relevant information.
c. Ability to appreciate the situation and its likely consequences.
d. Ability to manipulate information rationally and relevantly.
e. All of the above.
e. All of the above.
Which of the following competence to stand trial assessment instruments utilizes A hypothetical case scenario?
a. Georgia competency scale.
b. MacArthur Competency Assessment.
c. IFI-R.
d. ECST-R
e. None of the above
b. MacArthur Competency Assessment.
A confession to police after Miranda rights have been reviewed may be admissible even if it arose out of a command auditory hallucination when:
a. Police coercion is not involved.
b. The suspect under arrest lacks the capacity to intelligently waive Miranda rights.
c. The suspect under arrest has been appropriately medicated and has breakthrough psychotic symptoms.
d. The suspect under arrest did not knowingly waive his Miranda rights.
e. None of the above.
a. Police coercion is not involved.
In Panetti versus Quarterman, the US Supreme Court held:
a. That competence to be executed should no longer follow the standard articulated by the majority in the Ford versus Wainwright court.
b. That expert testimony would be unnecessary if a defendant appeared to The layman to have an irrational view of the reasons for his execution.
c. That the trial court erred in not allowing A petitioner’s rational understanding of the reason for execution to be considered in a competence to be executed determination.
d. That a rational understanding of the reasons for execution must be part of the competence to be executed standard.
e. That evidence related to a defendant’s rational understanding of the reasons for his execution need not be considered in a Competence to be executed hearing.
c. That the trial court erred in not allowing A petitioner’s rational understanding of the reason for execution to be considered in a competence to be executed determination.
Indiana versus Edwards establishes:
a. A constitutional standard for competence to proceed Pro se
b. A constitutional standard for competence to waive right to counsel.
c. That confidence to wave right to counsel requires the same standard as competence to represent oneself.
d. That the defendant may be incompetent to represent himself and be denied the right to self-representation.
e. That a defendant may be incompetent to represent himself, but the right to self-representation is absolute.
d. That the defendant may be incompetent to represent himself and be denied the right to self-representation.
Juvenile confidence to stand trial assessments typically include assessments involving the following:
a. Mental illness factors only
b. Mental Illness and Intellectual Disability only
c. Mental Illness, Intellectual Disability, Developmental Disability and Immaturity
d. Any factor except immaturity, because that is not a psychiatric issue
d. Any factor except immaturity, because that is not a psychiatric issue
What was the issue and holding of Dusky v. US (1960)?
Competency neds to appreciate one’s current situation an its consequences. The capacity to manipulate information rationally relevant to the decisions at hand.
“has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.”
What was the issue and holding of Wilson v. U.S. (1968)?
Wisconsin case, assault with a pistol and robbery, head trauma in get away accident.
Is it a denial of due process or right to effective assistance of counsel to try a defendant with a loss of memory of the offense?
Amnesia per see does not equal incompetence in a case where recollection was present during the time of the alleged offenses and where the defendant has the ability to construct a knowledge of what happened from other sources and where he has the present ability to follow the course of the proceedings against him and discusses them rationally with his attorney.
What was the finding and issue of Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996)?
What is the standard of proof for finding incompetence?
OK statute said clear and convincing, but the USSC ruled that criminal competence was different than civil commitment and a preponderance of the evidence was the appropriate standard.
What was the issue and holding in Jackson v. Indiana?
The USSC said that an incompetent defendant cannot be held more than the reasonable period necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that he will regain competence in the foreseeable future. Once it becomes apparent that restoration is unlikely, the defendant must be released or committed under standard civil commitment criteria. The claim was a violation of the 14th and 8th Amendments.
“Due process requires that the nature and duration of confinement bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed.”
What was the issue and finding in Riggins v. Nevada (1992)?
Nevada man forced to take meds during trial.
Forced medication for pre-trial defendants violated 6th and 14th Amendments. To force the medication, the state would need to show there were no less intrusive alternatives, that the medication was appropriate, and it was essential to take it for safety.
What was the issue and finding in Sell v. U.S. (2003)?
The USSC said that medication to restore trial competence for serious offenses could be administered involuntarily under certain, limited circumstances: 1) Govt interest at stake; 2) medication with further those interests; 3) no less intrusive alternative; 4) medically appropriate.
What must be necessary to demonstrate one’s ability to waive their rights?
That it be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily
