Hello Group 11! Natalia is chairing the discussion this week. However, it seems that I will be starting out our last discussion with this post. In order to address this question thoroughly, I went back to our text for this course and reread chapters 13 and 14 to review the key cases relevant to trials rights. There are a lot of important cases mentioned in the two chapters, but I found the most significant cases (in my opinion) within chapter thirteen. It was difficult to choose just one, so I began to narrow down the options by focusing on the top three cases that I found to be the most significant. I am not intending to bore you by elaborating about my process for responding to this discussion prompt, I just wanted offer up a possible …show more content…
United States, 362, U.S. 402 (1960). The significance of this case seemed glaring to me when compared to the other cases. This case set the standard for determining competency to stand trial, it is even referred to as the “Dusky standard.” The test for mental competence occurs pretrial. In order to be deemed mentally competent enough to stand trial, the defendant must be able to understand the proceedings against him/her. The defendant must also be able to assist in preparing his/her defense by (coherently) consulting with his/her appointed legal counsel/representation. It is important to note that orientation to time and place are insufficient in serving as sole determinants of mental competency for trial. Once again, the competency test is different from the insanity defense. A defendant’s mental competency during a trial is an extremely important factor. It seems to me that without determining competency (if the defendant’s competency is at all in question) the validity of the criminal proceedings, the trial itself, and the ruling/outcome would be invalid. It is illogical to go ahead and convict someone who is unable to understanding what is going on during a
Throughout the trial, defense attorneys attempted to argue Salvi was suffering from psychological disorders that would make him incompetent for trial. Ultimately, however Salvi was found competent to stand trial. After reading Salvi’s full psychiatric interview, the official court transcript of the four-day competency hearing, and the day-to-day summary; I have come to agree that the defendant, John Salvi was competent to stand trial.
A crucial issue that was relevant during the trial was that should the Supreme Court of Canada support the Criminal Code under section 429 and 430 or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under section 11 and 15. This brought up the question that what is the true role of the Charter. Prior to the decision, there was confusion on whether or not the accused outside of Ontario had the right to choose who to be tried by. The court believed that being tried by a jury is a benefit that the accused is entitled to and not a punishment. As seen in history, individuals have praised the jury for being a privilege and a civil liberty that common law has to offer. Civil juries have also been described as an instrument of justice. The court referred back to a quote from a well-known judge named William Blackstone during the Elizabethan era who described the jury as “the glory of English law” and “the most transcendent privilege which any subject can enjoy.” Secondly, the court referred to the Singer v. United States case which was also very similar to the R. v. Turpin. Singer was charged for 30 accounts of criminal mail fraud. The defendant claimed that he had absolute right to choose to be tried with judge alone if a trial was for his advantage. After an extensive exhaustion of many sources and legal precedents, the court found that nowhere in the history of common law does it state that defendants should have the right to choose the method of their trial in a murder trial. The final decision in the Singer v. United States case also stated that the defenders only right concerning the method of trial is to be tried by both a jury and judge. This gave The Supreme Court of Canada enough evidence to conclude their decision that appellants had no right to choose who to be tried by. After the decision, this case became a permanent legal precedent for any other
There are many court cases that can make the case of being one of the most important court cases in American history. There are so many court cases that I am unable to decide on only one. Five court cases can lay claim to this number one position. These cases are so important. one Similitary between them is that they all have to do with limiting the states and governments rights. That is why these cases can be ranked #1 in important court cases.
The Supreme Court formulated the standards of competency in the criminal process, in the case of Dusky v, united states, 362 U.S 402 (1960). The standards set by the court are broad, vague and open-textured. It allows clinical evaluations in the interpretation and application of the test. The conviction of a defendant while he or she has mental illness or incompetence violates due process.
R v. Keegstra: s. 2 (b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms versus s. 319 (2) of the Criminal Code
The M’Naghten rule required anyone who plead insanity to undergo a test of insanity, or the right-wrong test, where they had to prove at the time of the crime that they did not know what they were doing was wrong. Using this test the jury had to figure out two questions. One, did the defendant know at the time of the crime what the were doing was wrong, or two, did the defendant understand what he was doing was wrong (Kollins). The M’Naghten rule was a huge step in helping with the insanity plea. Furthermore it helped ease the use of it because people had to begin to prove themselves more to the court. Having to prove themselves to the court makes it more difficult to allow them to get out of the crime they committed. In the years following many rules have been created. One of the most recently made is the Federal Rule. Ronald Reagan was a big part in having this law passed. This law states that the defendant is required to prove, “by clear and convincing evidence” that "at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts
In the United States, jury trials are an important part of our court system. We rely heavily on the jury to decide the fate of the accused. We don’t give a second thought to having a jury trial now, but they were not always the ‘norm’.
After watching Finding Dawn, my impression of the film documentary had hit me hard, especially due the fact that I am a female and strikes me to empathize with women who have who are treated like a ghosts by the government. No one wants to be have that treatment to them. You have to have no ounce of humanity in you to ignore the issue, specifically indigenous women, who have to put their lives at risk in order to survive because of a systemic discrimination that constantly ignores this part of society that where recognition is lacking.
American citizens accused of crimes have a constitutional right to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with witnesses against them, to bring witnesses in their favor, and to have the assistance of legal counsel. On April 27, 1861, Lincoln decided that such constitutional...
Judge Kaufman made a big point when Ethel used her Fifth Amendment right and declined to answer questions on the basis that she might incriminate herself. The judge said, "it is something that the jury may weigh and consider on the questioning of the truthfulness of the witness and on credibility." Not only that, but the judge allegedly would lead prosecuting witnesses to say things against defense. Defense lawyer Alexander Block tried to get a mistrial based on the judge's behavior, but was denied. Judge's bias continued throughout the trial and was expressed most clearly in his sentencing speech. The issue of punishment in this case is presented in a unique framework of history.
Another facet to this concept of competency restoration is the idea of predicting restorability. The groundbreaking case Jackson v Indiana (1972) dealt with the issue of pre-trial involuntary commitment of an incompetent individual. Theon Jackson, a deaf-mute was charged with petty theft. During his competency evaluation, the physicians determined that Jackson’s intelligence was too low, he was therefore incompetent, and had a very small chance of competency restoration even if he were not a deaf-mute. Jackson was then involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital. An appeal was then filed, arguing that Jackson’s right to equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated. The Supreme Court’s ruling is as
The court found that in order for a defendant to be found NGRI, the defendant must “lack substantial capacity to appreciate that his conduct is wrongful or lack substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the law” (Helfgott, 2013). Ewing (2008) states “the ALI standard, which has become the major rival of M’Naghten, drew upon M’Naghten and the “irresistible impulse” standard” (p. 20). Ewing (2008) also states “the ALI definition of insanity also includes the caveat that the terms ‘mental disease or defect’ do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct” (p. 20). Furthermore Ewing (2008) states “under the ALI formulation, a defendant may be found not guilty by reason of insanity if lacking either cognitive or volitional capacity”
In illustration to the application of the rights espoused by this amendment, Ralph Howard Blakely, Jr V. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 [2004] is going to be my first case example. In this case, it was held that the right to jury under Sixth Amendment restricts judges from increasing the sentences based on facts other than the jury decides. Lastly, the case of Marc Gilbert Doggett, Petitioner V. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) expounds on the right to a speedy trial. It was held that the eight years between indictment and the eventual arrest of the suspect was in violation of the speedy trial clause.
Separate but equal, judicial review, and the Miranda Rights are decisions made by the Supreme Court that have impacted the United States in history altering ways. Another notable decision was made in the Tinker v. Des Moines Case. Ultimately the Supreme Court decided that the students in the case should have their rights protected and that the school acted unconstitutionally. Justice Fortas delivered a compelling majority opinion. In the case of Tinker v Des Moines, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion was strongly supported with great reasoning but had weaknesses that could present future problems.
A Fair Trial is the best way to extract the guilty from the innocent. Fair Trail is perhaps the best means to protect the innocent against injustice. The concept of right to a fair trial is a norm at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, the features