Essay On Competency To Stand Trial

The children could hear the terrifying screams from their siblings in the bathroom. One by one all five entered the bathroom where their mother waited for them, unfortunately not a single one would make it out alive. Within six months of this heinous crime Andrea Yates the mother of these five children was put on trial. The evidence presented by both sides in the courtroom, would have long lasting effects on everyone involved in the case, as well as the millions of Americans that were following the trial. Visual testimony in any trial, especially a murder trial can have many effects on the outcome of a trial. Both prosecutors, and defense attorneys have a huge burden to fulfill in order

"The median amount of time taken to complete adult NCRMD cases was 132 days, which is 17% longer than the 113 days taken for non-NCRMD criminal court cases." (Miladinovic, Z., & Lukassen, J., 2015, February 25) This data demonstrates that those in charge of the case must know the case in order to set a just trial. "The verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) is a final decision reached when a judge or jury finds that an accused was suffering from a mental disorder while committing the criminal act and as a result is exempt from criminal responsibility (Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, s.672.34). An individual found NCRMD is neither acquitted nor found guilty (Latimer and Lawrence 2006); the court or Review Board may make one of three dispositions: absolute discharge, conditional discharge, or detention in a hospital (Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, s.672.54)." (Miladinovic, Z., & Lukassen, J., 2015, February 25) The outcome of a just trial and its verdict, is based on proof of evidence, which ensures what 's best for the

Bath, N.Y. (WENY) -- In a few days Thomas Clayton will be sentenced for his role in orchestrating his wife 's death. However on Thursday, the attorney for the convicted murderer made his first motion for a new trial.

The success of competency restoration depends on the defendant responsiveness and to medical treatment if he or she is diagnosed with mental disorders that can render a suspect incompetence to stand trial as; such disorders might include Schizophrenia and the other psychotic disorders. Conferring to Anderson, & Hewitt, (2002), “individuals who show clinically significant improvement in general psychopathology are more likely to be perceived as restored to competency.” However, 50% of people who are diagnosed with mental retardation or acquired cognitive deficits are not restored; such mental disorders render the suspect irresponsive to the required court

He also spoke on the phone with respondent’s wife and mother. He attempted once, unsuccessfully to meet with them; however, he did not follow up a second time. Additionally, the counsel did not seek out additional character witnesses for respondent. The counsel’s conversations with his client led him to believe he did not need to request a psychiatric examination because he did not believe the respondent had psychological problems. In a state of hopelessness, the counsel decided not to present nor look for further evidence concerning respondent’s character and emotional state, because he believed it would not overcome the evidentiary effect of the respondent’s confessions to the crimes. The counselor also judged that he should rely on the plea colloquy for evidence about respondent’s background and his claim of emotional stress. The counselor believed the plea colloquy provided sufficient information to the Court about these subjects. He also believed that by not introducing new evidence on these subjects, he prevented the State from cross-examining the respondent on his claim and from introducing its own psychiatric evidence. He also was successful in excluding other damaging evidence from the sentencing hearing, including the introduction of the respondent’s criminal history. He also judged that a pre-sentence report would likely be more damaging than helpful because it

People act upon what they think. Within “12 Angry Men”, all of the jurors have an opinion but some voice their more than others. One juror in particular, Juror Ten, voices his opinion about the boy in question. Repeatedly throughout the play, Juror Ten makes many thoughtless and hurtful comments about a certain kind of people. It is clear that Juror Ten’s uncompromising belief that the accused is guilty is because of his dislike for the boy’s race. His prejudice is clear when he says that “I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say” when speaking about the boy (16). Juror Ten’s prejudice causes him to disregard all of the facts that are presented to him by Juror Eight that can prove that the accused is not guilty. Juror 10 allows his prejudice to blind him of the truth. That is until he is called out by his fellow jurors. Throughout the whole play, Juror Ten remains stubborn in his decision that the defendant is guilty. Yet, at the end the finally sees that there is reasonable doubt (62). Interestingly enough, on the previous page Juror Ten is called out by Juror Four (60). The foreman also has some prejudice at the beginning of the case. He brings up another case that is similar to the one they are doing. He says the defendant accused of murder was let off and “eight years later they found out that he’d actually done it, anyway” (12). Prejudice clouds a person’s judgement and does not allow the individual to see all the facts. It only allows them to

It confirms the already assumed. During the court trial, Dr. Jones was asked “From your conversations and examination of Perry Edward Smith, do you have an opinion as to whether he knew right from wrong at the time of the offense involved in this action?” (296). The doctor replies with a simple no. I strongly disagree what the doctor decides to reply. He claims he has no opinion because of Perry having no opinion. He is confused by Perry. Perry’s personality is one that he can not comprehend. It is clear just from a few sentences the Perry has spoken about the events that had taken place, that there is some sort of mental instability. Why the Doctor chooses to say he has no opinion rather than explaining he isn’t sure if Perry did know right from wrong because he is mentally abnormal is unknown. He could have saved Perry’s life by sending him to a psych ward rather than Death Row. Mistakes like these are made more than people think. Not giving full information in the courtroom can lead people to fates that they don’t deserve. More than one doctor should have testified for both criminals. The more observations would leave less room for

During the trial in the book to kill a mockingbird by Harper Lee. The Lawyer Atticus Finch uses rhetorical appeals such as ethos, logos, and pathos tap into the jury's sense of ethics, logic and emotion to convey Tom Robinson, a black man, is innocence in a rape case.

Although in In Cold Blood, Truman Capote is illustrating the aftermath of the murders, his prime motive is to humanize and create sympathy for Perry; therefore he asserts that the Law is biased and cruel to those who commit crimes.

Clarence Earl Gideon was not someone you would expect to be a hero. According to www.uscourts.gov, he left school after the 8th grade and decided to run away from home. “He was mostly a drifter, spending time in and out of prison for nonviolent crimes,” their website reads. When he was 51 years old, he was accused of breaking into a bar in Florida and arrested. He was too poor to afford a lawyer, so when he got to court, he asked the judge to appoint him one, according to his rights under the Sixth Amendment. The judge refused, and he had to represent himself. “He made an opening statement to the jury, cross-examined the prosecution 's witnesses, brought witnesses in his own defense, declined to testify himself, and made arguments emphasizing

For the past two decades, “The Innocence Project” with the help of updated science methods have worked relentlessly to get innocent people out of prison. Through DNA testing, they have been able to find new evidence that have freed hundreds of prisoners who were wrongfully convicted. Other factors such as eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, government misconduct, and inadequate defense also played keys roles in the wrongful convictions. The case that I would I would like to highlight today is that of, Johnnie Lindsey. Johnnie Lindsey was a 30-year old laundry worker who was falsely accused of rape. On August 25, 1981, a white woman reported that she raped while riding her bike at White Rock Lake in Dallas. She told police that

“I’m taking this all the way to the Supreme Court!” In the United States if a defendant feels as though they did not receive a fair trial the court system allows the offended to appeal to a higher court. Likewise, if the next court’s decision is unsatisfactory the defendant can continue to appeal to higher courts until they reach the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land. However, the Supreme Court is a vastly different courtroom than a trial court. The case of Gideon v. Wainwright highlights the differences between the Supreme Court and Trial Courts.

“the right to a speedy and public, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

The Scootsboro trials were trails the happened in Scottsboro, Alabama. Nine black boys got into a fight on the train with the white boys and when they got off of the train two white women got off after them and yelled rape. The nine boys were not even on the same cart as those two women, so that means they couldn’t have raped those women. There wasn’t any evidence that they raped the women either. One of the women who yelled rape confessed that they did not even get raped and that they were just trying to save themselves from getting in trouble because they were prostitutes and they weren’t supposed to cross the border, but they did so they decided to yell rape to try and get them in trouble. At the trials the lawyers that they got to have

The discretion of the case was significant in the regard of the defense, which countered some contradicted evidences. The evidences from the trial and the hearing preliminaries have revealed that the children were coached. The testimony showed lack of credibility on the issues and showing the significance of the discretion on the defense. McMartin told his attorney that he did not do it and his attorney used his discretion and believed him.