Source Directory: Find or Browse | Create Permanent Link | Help

Use of this service is subject to Terms and Conditions

Results List | Edit Search | New Search | Home

Re

Show

Full with Indexing

Search within results

1 of 1

More Lik

47 Duq. L. Rev. 441, *

Select Language
Powered by

Disclaimer

Translate

Copyright (c) 2009 Duquesne University

Duquesne Law Review
Spring, 2009
Duquesne Law Review
47 Duq. L. Rev. 441
LENGTH: 14586 words

RECENT DECISION: The United States Constitution Allows a State to Limit the Right of a Criminal Defendant to Represent Himself at Trial on the Ground of a La
Mental Competence: Indiana v. Edwards

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -- CRIMINAL LAW -- MENTAL COMPETENCE -- RIGHT OF SELF-REPRESENTATION -- The United States Supreme Court held that a crimi
defendant who has been determined competent to stand trial is not necessarily competent to represent himself at trial and can therefore be prevented from
so by the State.
Indiana v. Edwards, 128 S. Ct. 2379 (2008).
NAME: Patrick Manning

LEXISNEXIS SUMMARY:
... The Supreme Court cases that had examined the issue of "mental competency," Breyer wrote, established a standard which centered on a defendant's ability to consult pres
with counsel. ... Justice Scalia supported this contention by noting that Edwards's attorney made different arguments in his defense than those preferred by Edwards. ... The
dissenters found nothing in the Sixth Amendment guaranteeing the right of self-representation. ... The two issues of competency to stand trial and a right to self-representatio
collided, at least somewhat, in Godinez v. ... In Godinez, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had held that the standard of competency to waive constitutio
rights, including that of self-representation, was higher than that of the standard of competency to stand trial. ... The Court, in Godinez, reasoned that all criminal defendants,
whether they plead guilty or not, may have to make difficult and important decisions once proceedings have been initiated against them. ... The Court, however, clearly pointed
the distinction between a defendant waiving the right to appointed counsel and actually representing himself at trial, a distinction that would be repeated in Edwards III. ... Wh
there will undoubtedly be a great deal of legal debate as to how to correctly interpret "voluntarily and knowingly" or "voluntarily and intelligently" in the context of mental illne
simply carrying over the existing Faretta rule into cases involving borderline mental competence will allow the Court to reach its desired result with less reliance on history, trad
Hits: 1 of 2