Competency And Stand Trial Is Coming Into Question

In this case, plaintiff Helen Foster brought a wrongful death action after her mentally retarded son was killed while under the supervision of two teachers, defendants Inez Grant and Lloyd Gray.

Jamina Briggs is a 32-year-old African American female initially admitted to Memphis Mental Health Institute (MMHI) August 1, 2013, pursuant to provisions of T.C.A. §33-7-301(a) for an evaluation and assessment of competency and mental condition at the time of the alleged offenses of two counts of first degree murder of her children. She was discharged on September 26, 2013 as not competent and a recommendation for commitment. On November 11, 2013 Ms. Briggs was admitted to Western Mental Health Institute (WMHI)for continued treatment and competency training pursuant to the provisions of T.C.A. §33-7-301(b). On April 4, 2015 Ms. Briggs was discharged from WMHI as competent with support for the insanity defense. Following the court’s decision of not guilty by reason of insanity, Ms. Briggs was evaluated by West Tennessee Forensics, an outpatient provider, and subsequently admitted to WMHI pursuant to provisions of T.C.A. §33-7-303(c). Aggressive and assaultive behaviors while at WMHI

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to have the assistance of counsel for his defense” (U.S. Const. amend. VI). The history of the modern right to counsel dates back to over a century ago in the Indiana Supreme Court case of Webb v. Baird, 6 In. 13 (1853), in which the right to counsel for a person accused of a crime was officially recognized (Koplow, 2007). However, it was not a decision based on constitutional or statutory law, but a decision warranted under “the principles of a civilized society” (Koplow, 2007). Since the case of Webb v. Baird, the right to counsel has immensely extended beyond just appointing an indigent person an attorney.

Second, the defendant must show that the errors made by counsel prejudiced the defense. This means showing that counsel’s error were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, or a trial whose result is reliable (Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed. 2d 674 (1984)

     This case had to do with an Ernest Miranda who raped a Patty McGee*. After extracting a written confession from the rapist about the situation, Miranda’s lawyer argued that it was not valid since the Phoenix Police Department failed to read Miranda his rights, also in violation of the Sixth Amendment which is the right to counsel. Some factors that helped support Miranda’s arguments were that the suspect had requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with a lawyer; the suspect had not been effectively warned about his right to remain silent; and an incriminating statement must have been given by the suspect. The author of the Arizona court’s decision, former U.S. Senator and

In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), we built up that keeping in mind the end goal to set up incapable help of advice under the 6th Amendment, a respondent needs to build up that insight's execution was equitably inadequate and that yet for that lacking execution, the trial result would have been distinctive. There are exemptions to the general standard. In situations where a barrier counsel has a dynamic irreconcilable situation, we assume that the trial result has without a doubt been influenced, and we don't require the respondent to demonstrate likely impact. In Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978), we held that a programmed inversion is proper when the trial court does not ask into a numerous representation irreconcilable situation that is raised by resistance counsel. In Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980), we didn't extend Holloway's programmed inversion standard to situations where no complaint has been made to a different representation circumstance. In those cases, a litigant must show that "an irreconcilable situation really influenced the sufficiency of his representation." Sullivan additionally tended to the subject of when the trial court has an obligation to ask into the legitimacy of various representation. It said request is essential just when "the trial court knows or sensibly ought to realize that a specific clash exists." For today's situation we should decide how the assumed irreconcilable circumstance agrees with these cases. Here, guard counsel did not challenge his failure to speak to Mickens successfully, and the trial court did not make the Sullivan-ordered investigation into the respectability of numerous representation. Therefore, Mickens still had the weight of demonstrating that the irreconcilable situation

In support of this position, the government cited two decided decisions by the Court holding that the failure to object to a jury instruction is not controlling “for purposes of appellate review of the denial of a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” Rather, the question of whether a party is entitled to a directed verdict “depends upon the sufficiency of the evidence up to that point in the trial,” not of the content of jury instructions, which are “outside the scope of that analysis.”

On July 27, 2006, the New York Times published an article on the findings of the retrial of Andrea Yates and her not guilty due to insanity over the drowning deaths of her five children. (Woman Not Guilty, 2006). The court decided to commit her to a state mental hospital until medical experts decide she is not a threat to herself or anyone else. In 2002, an earlier jury rejected her claims she was psychotic and found her guilty. Yates alleged by murdering her children she actually saved them. (Woman Not Guilty, 2006). The appeals court overturned the decision because of “erroneous testimony from a prosecution witness.” (Woman Not Guilty, 2006). Yate’s lead lawyer, George Parnham, remarked that the verdict was a “watershed for mental

Since they were in the process of divorce was her husband had another agenda behind the petition he filed to the court? If he hadn’t why was he absent at the time she was taken to the hospital? Did her husband bribe psychiatrist? Did the conversation the plaintiff had with defendant enough to level her as mentally ill? Was she really ill? If she was , could she refuse to have the treatment? Was she competent at the time of her refusal for the treatment? Was she capable to give her consent? What was the result of the treatment?

The criminal trial process is an interesting process that takes place in Courtrooms all across the United States and throughout the globe. This study intends to set out the various steps in the criminal trial process in the American justice system. A trial is described as a "legal forum for resolving individual disputes, and in the case of a criminal charge, it is a means for establishing whether an accused person is legally guilty of an offense. The trial process varies with respect to whether the matter at issue is civil in nature or criminal. In either case, a jury acts as a fact-finding body for the court in assessing information and evidence that is presented by the respective parties in a case. A judge presides over the court and addresses all the legal issues that arise during the trial. A judge also instructs the jury how to apply the facts to the laws that will govern in a given case." (3rd Judicial District, 2012)

A woman says she fought an attacker who tried to protect her unborn baby but failed. Wilkins had seen a craigslist advertisement over maternity clothing for her seven and a half month unborn baby. She had decided to arrive at the location that was provided and met the person. As she was being guided to the basement of Lane’s, Lane had turned around and started to attack Wilkins. The cause of this fight was Lane had jealousy over those women who were pregnant. She was overly obsessed about being pregnant and about having a child. Lane had even posted online that she was supposedly expecting a baby boy and a baby shower was done for her. This lady have the brutal fate of cutting Wilkins’ belly while she was conscious on the floor. Lane had taken the seven and a half month unborn baby from Wilkins and was taken to the hospital by her husband. Wilkins had called the police and was sent

The sixth amendment to the U.S constitution guarantees a defendant in a criminal prosecution the right to a speedy, public, and impartial trial by jury. Once it has determined that the trail will be by jury, the next step in the criminal proceeding is the selection of the jurors. During this process possible jurors receive a summons in the mall ordering them to appear in court at a specified time and date the people who are summoned comprise the venire (the prospective jurors for cases). Voir dire Latin term meaning to speak the truth, this is an examination conducted by the courts or by the attorneys of a potential juror or witness to determine if they would be proficient or qualified for services. Jurors’ questionnaires reveals information disqualifying them from jury service is only the first step in the jury selection process. Typical questions relate to whether prospective jurors know the defendant, the attorneys, or any of the witnesses, whether they have read or heard about the case in the media, and whether they have racial, nationality, or gender biases. Effective voir dire is getting the prospective jurors to tell the court or attorneys what they need to know.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants had prior knowledge that their daughter was a target for murder by a psychiatric patient and failed to warn the victim or anyone capable of stopping act. Defendants had notified campus police of patient’s intent, but after detaining him briefly, chose to release him because he “appeared rational.” Plaintiffs allege liability based on defendants’ failure to warn of impending danger, and failure to confine the patient. The Superior Court of California sustained the defendants’ demurrers to plaintiffs’ complaints. Appeal followed.

Ward was known to have mental illnesses throughout this life and yet still he was tried and convicted without a proper competency or mental illness cases being acknowledged and researched for valid defense purpose.

It is the right of the jury to judge what the facts are, what the law