AJ 012 Lecture Notes - Lecture 18: Moe Williams, Insanity Defense, Fide

• School: Pasadena City College
• Department: Administration of Justice
• Course: AJ 012
• Professor: yang

Document Summary

Cooper v. oklahoma (1996); medina v. california (1992) Preponderance of the evidence (poe) standard used when determining cst, including beyond a reasonable doubt (brd) and clear and convincing evidence (cce) standard. Cst versus competence to plead guilty and competency to waive an attorney: Johnson v. zerbst, 1938 (u. s. supreme court) guilty plea must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Godinez v. moran, 1993 (u. s. supreme court) competency to waive attorney or competency to plead guilty not required once defendant cst found. Indiana v. edwards, 2008 (u. s. supreme court) higher standard for the mentally ill to waive counsel set. Attorney is guided by ethical guidelines to inform if defendant thought to be incompetent. Cst evaluations only introduced if defendant places mental state into evidence (estelle: smith, 1981) Cst typically raised at pretrial hearing, unless bona fide doubt about defendant competency. May be strategic request (e. g. , trial delay; prevent bail release; insight into insanity defense)