medina
california
argued
february
decided
june
petitioner
medina
trial
inter
alia
murder
california
granted
motion
competency
hearing
pursuant
state
law
forbids
mentally
incompetent
person
tried
punished
establishes
presumption
competence
placed
petitioner
burden
proving
incompetence
preponderance
evidence
jury
empaneled
competency
hearing
found
medina
competent
stand
trial
subsequently
convicted
sentenced
death
state
affirmed
rejecting
medina
claim
competency
statute
burden
proof
presumption
provisions
violated
right
due
process
held
due
process
clause
permits
state
require
defendant
claiming
incompetence
stand
trial
bear
burden
proving
preponderance
evidence
pp
contrary
medina
argument
mathews
eldridge
test
evaluating
procedural
due
process
claims
provide
appropriate
framework
assessing
validity
state
procedural
rules
part
criminal
law
process
clear
mathews
essential
results
raddatz
ake
oklahoma
criminal
law
cases
invoked
mathews
resolving
due
process
claims
rather
proper
analytical
approach
set
forth
patterson
new
york
held
power
state
regulate
procedures
carrying
criminal
laws
including
burdens
producing
evidence
persuasion
subject
proscription
due
process
clause
unless
offends
principle
justice
rooted
traditions
conscience
people
ranked
fundamental
pp
historical
basis
concluding
allocating
burden
proof
criminal
defendant
prove
incompetence
violates
due
process
rule
incompetent
criminal
defendant
required
stand
trial
deep
roots
country
common
law
heritage
settled
tradition
exists
proper
allocation
burden
proof
competency
proceeding
moreover
contemporary
practice
demonstrates
remains
settled
view
burden
lie
pp
state
allocation
burden
proof
defendant
transgress
recognized
principle
fundamental
fairness
operation
decision
leland
oregon
upheld
state
right
place
defendant
burden
proving
defense
insanity
compel
conclusion
procedural
rule
issue
constitutional
significant
differences
claim
incompetence
plea
guilty
reason
insanity
nonetheless
state
met
due
process
obligation
providing
defendant
access
procedures
making
competency
evaluation
basis
requiring
assume
burden
vindicating
defendant
constitutional
right
tried
legally
incompetent
persuading
trier
fact
defendant
competent
stand
trial
pp
allocating
burden
defendant
inconsistent
holding
pate
robinson
defendant
whose
competence
doubt
deemed
waived
right
competency
hearing
question
whether
defendant
whose
competence
doubt
deemed
made
knowing
intelligent
waiver
quite
different
question
presented
although
psychiatry
inexact
science
reasonable
minds
may
differ
wisdom
placing
burden
proof
defendant
circumstances
state
required
adopt
one
procedure
another
basis
may
produce
results
favorable
accused
addition
fact
burden
proof
allocated
state
variety
issues
implicating
criminal
defendant
constitutional
rights
mean
burden
must
placed
state
lego
twomey
distinguished
pp
reasons
discussed
herein
regard
allocation
burden
proof
presumption
competence
violate
due
process
reason
disturb
state
conclusion
essence
challenged
presumption
restatement
burden
kennedy
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
white
scalia
thomas
joined
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
souter
joined
post
blackmun
filed
dissenting
opinion
stevens
joined
post
michael
pescetta
appointment
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
sarah
plotkin
holly
wilkens
deputy
attorney
general
california
argued
cause
respondent
briefs
daniel
lungren
attorney
general
george
williamson
chief
assistant
attorney
general
gary
schons
senior
assistant
attorney
general
pat
zaharopoulos
supervising
deputy
attorney
general
edward
chikofsky
william
rold
filed
brief
committee
legal
problems
mentally
ill
association
bar
city
new
york
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
brief
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
solicitor
general
starr
assistant
attorney
general
mueller
deputy
solicitor
general
bryson
paul
larkin
criminal
justice
legal
foundation
kent
scheidegger
charles
hobson
justice
kennedy
delivered
opinion
well
established
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
prohibits
criminal
prosecution
defendant
competent
stand
trial
drope
missouri
pate
robinson
issue
case
whether
due
process
clause
permits
state
require
defendant
alleges
incompetence
stand
trial
bear
burden
proving
preponderance
evidence
petitioner
teofilo
medina
stole
gun
pawnshop
santa
ana
california
weeks
followed
held
two
gas
stations
dairy
market
murdered
three
employees
establishments
attempted
rob
fourth
employee
shot
two
attempted
follow
getaway
car
petitioner
apprehended
less
one
month
crime
spree
began
charged
number
criminal
offenses
including
three
counts
murder
trial
petitioner
counsel
moved
competency
hearing
cal
penal
code
ann
west
ground
unsure
whether
petitioner
ability
participate
criminal
proceedings
record
california
law
person
tried
adjudged
punishment
person
mentally
incompetent
cal
penal
code
ann
west
defendant
mentally
incompetent
result
mental
disorder
developmental
disability
defendant
unable
understand
nature
criminal
proceedings
assist
counsel
conduct
defense
rational
manner
ibid
statute
establishes
presumption
defendant
competent
party
claiming
incompetence
bears
burden
proving
defendant
incompetent
preponderance
evidence
shall
presumed
defendant
mentally
competent
unless
proved
preponderance
evidence
defendant
mentally
incompetent
trial
granted
motion
hearing
preliminary
issue
petitioner
competence
stand
trial
tried
jury
course
hearing
addition
lay
testimony
jury
heard
conflicting
expert
testimony
petitioner
mental
condition
california
gives
summary
gold
psychiatrist
knew
defendant
arizona
prison
system
testified
defendant
paranoid
schizophrenic
incompetent
assist
attorney
trial
echeandia
clinical
psychologist
orange
county
jail
doubted
accuracy
schizophrenia
diagnosis
express
opinion
defendant
competence
stand
trial
sharma
psychiatrist
likewise
expressed
doubts
regarding
schizophrenia
diagnosis
leaned
toward
finding
competence
pierce
psychologist
believed
defendant
schizophrenic
impaired
memory
hallucinations
nevertheless
competent
stand
trial
sakurai
jail
psychiatrist
opined
although
defendant
suffered
depression
competent
may
malingering
sheffield
treated
defendant
knife
wounds
incurred
jail
give
opinion
competency
issue
trial
instructed
jury
accordance
defendant
presumed
mentally
competent
burden
proving
preponderance
evidence
mentally
incompetent
result
mental
disorder
developmental
disability
app
jury
found
petitioner
competent
stand
trial
new
jury
empaneled
criminal
trial
record
petitioner
entered
pleas
guilty
guilty
reason
insanity
conclusion
guilt
phase
petitioner
found
guilty
three
counts
murder
number
lesser
offenses
moved
withdraw
insanity
plea
trial
granted
motion
two
days
later
however
petitioner
moved
reinstate
insanity
plea
although
counsel
expressed
view
reinstatement
insanity
plea
tactically
unsound
trial
granted
petitioner
motion
sanity
hearing
held
jury
found
petitioner
sane
time
offenses
penalty
phase
jury
found
murders
premeditated
deliberate
returned
verdict
death
trial
imposed
death
penalty
murder
convictions
sentenced
petitioner
prison
term
remaining
offenses
direct
appeal
california
petitioner
challenge
standard
proof
set
forth
argued
statute
violated
right
due
process
placing
burden
proof
establish
competent
stand
trial
addition
argued
violates
due
process
establishing
presumption
defendant
competent
stand
trial
unless
proven
otherwise
rejected
contentions
relying
upon
decision
leland
oregon
rejected
due
process
challenge
oregon
statute
required
criminal
defendant
prove
defense
insanity
beyond
reasonable
doubt
observed
ordinarily
great
latitude
decide
proper
placement
proof
burdens
view
subject
defendant
hardship
oppression
one
might
reasonably
expect
defendant
counsel
better
access
people
facts
relevant
competency
inquiry
also
rejected
petitioner
argument
irrational
retain
presumption
competence
sufficient
doubt
arisen
defendant
competence
warrant
hearing
decline
hold
matter
due
process
presumption
must
treated
mere
presumption
affecting
burden
production
disappears
merely
preliminary
often
undefined
indefinite
doubt
arisen
justifies
inquiry
matter
granted
certiorari
affirm
ii
petitioner
argues
decision
mathews
eldridge
provides
proper
analytical
framework
determining
whether
california
allocation
burden
proof
competency
hearings
comports
due
process
disagree
mathews
articulated
test
evaluating
procedural
due
process
claims
requires
consider
irst
private
interest
affected
official
action
second
risk
erroneous
deprivation
interest
procedures
used
probable
value
additional
substitute
procedural
safeguards
finally
government
interest
including
function
involved
fiscal
administrative
burdens
additional
substitute
procedural
requirement
entail
field
criminal
law
defined
category
infractions
violate
fundamental
fairness
narrowly
based
recognition
eyond
specific
guarantees
enumerated
bill
rights
due
process
clause
limited
operation
dowling
accord
lovasco
bill
rights
speaks
explicit
terms
many
aspects
criminal
procedure
expansion
constitutional
guarantees
rubric
due
process
clause
invites
undue
interference
considered
legislative
judgments
careful
balance
constitution
strikes
liberty
order
said
spencer
texas
never
thought
decisions
due
process
clause
establish
rulemaking
organ
promulgation
state
rules
criminal
procedure
accord
estelle
mcguire
marshall
lonberger
mathews
involved
due
process
challenge
adequacy
administrative
procedures
established
purpose
terminating
social
security
disability
benefits
mathews
balancing
test
first
conceived
address
due
process
claims
arising
context
administrative
law
although
since
characterized
mathews
balancing
test
general
approach
testing
challenged
state
procedures
due
process
claim
parham
applied
variety
contexts
santosky
kramer
standard
proof
termination
parental
rights
objection
addington
texas
standard
proof
involuntary
civil
commitment
mental
hospital
indefinite
period
invoked
mathews
resolving
due
process
claims
criminal
law
cases
two
occasions
raddatz
cited
mathews
balancing
test
rejecting
due
process
challenge
provision
federal
magistrates
act
authorized
magistrates
make
findings
recommendations
motions
suppress
evidence
ake
oklahoma
relied
upon
mathews
holding
indigent
capital
defendant
made
preliminary
showing
sanity
time
offense
likely
significant
factor
trial
due
process
requires
defendant
provided
access
assistance
psychiatrist
without
disturbing
holdings
raddatz
ake
clear
mathews
essential
results
reached
cases
raddatz
supra
adverted
mathews
balancing
test
explicitly
rely
upon
conducting
due
process
analysis
raddatz
supra
marshall
dissenting
recites
th
test
even
attempt
apply
holding
ake
understood
expansion
earlier
due
process
cases
holding
indigent
criminal
defendant
entitled
minimum
assistance
necessary
assure
fair
opportunity
present
defense
participate
meaningfully
judicial
proceeding
ake
supra
proper
analytical
approach
one
adopt
set
forth
patterson
new
york
decided
one
year
mathews
patterson
rejected
due
process
challenge
new
york
law
placed
criminal
defendant
burden
proving
affirmative
defense
extreme
emotional
disturbance
rather
relying
upon
mathews
balancing
test
however
reasoned
narrower
inquiry
appropriate
goes
without
saying
preventing
dealing
crime
much
business
federal
government
irvine
california
plurality
opinion
lightly
construe
constitution
intrude
upon
administration
justice
individual
among
things
normally
within
power
state
regulate
procedures
laws
carried
including
burden
producing
evidence
burden
persuasion
decision
regard
subject
proscription
due
process
clause
unless
offends
principle
justice
rooted
traditions
conscience
people
ranked
fundamental
speiser
randall
leland
oregon
snyder
massachusetts
patterson
new
york
supra
based
review
historical
treatment
burden
proof
competency
proceedings
operation
challenged
rule
precedents
say
allocation
burden
proof
criminal
defendant
prove
incompetence
offends
principle
justice
rooted
traditions
conscience
people
ranked
fundamental
patterson
new
york
supra
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
historical
practice
probative
whether
procedural
rule
characterized
fundamental
see
winship
rule
criminal
defendant
incompetent
required
stand
trial
deep
roots
common
law
heritage
blackstone
acknowledged
defendant
became
mad
commission
offense
arraigned
able
plead
advice
caution
became
mad
pleading
tried
make
defense
drope
missouri
quoting
blackstone
commentaries
accord
hale
pleas
crown
contrast
settled
tradition
proper
allocation
burden
proof
proceeding
determine
competence
petitioner
concedes
common
law
rule
issue
time
constitution
adopted
entirely
clear
brief
petitioner
early
english
authorities
either
express
view
subject
firth
case
howell
kinloch
case
howell
ambiguous
king
steel
leach
stating
jury
determined
defendant
mute
visitation
god
deaf
dumb
mute
malice
arose
presumption
ideotism
prosecution
rebut
demonstrating
defendant
capacity
understand
signs
tokens
nineteenth
century
english
decisions
take
consistent
position
allocation
burden
proof
compare
turton
cox
burden
defendant
davies
carrington
kirwan
burden
prosecution
see
generally
podola
crim
app
collecting
conflicting
cases
american
decisions
dating
turn
century
also
express
divergent
views
subject
chisolm
sd
defendant
bears
burden
raising
reasonable
doubt
competence
state
helm
ark
burden
defendant
prove
incompetence
contemporary
practice
limited
relevance
due
process
inquiry
see
martin
ohio
supra
patterson
new
york
supra
demonstrates
remains
settled
view
burden
proof
lie
federal
government
adopted
procedures
address
issue
defendant
competence
stand
trial
see
brakel
parry
weiner
mentally
disabled
law
table
pp
ed
enacted
statutes
like
place
burden
proof
party
raising
issue
tit
purdon
supp
number
state
courts
said
burden
proof
may
placed
defendant
prove
incompetence
wallace
state
cert
denied
state
aumann
iowa
state
chapman
barber
state
app
en
banc
cert
denied
still
state
courts
said
burden
rests
prosecution
diaz
state
del
commonwealth
crowley
mass
state
bertrand
state
jones
discerning
historical
basis
concluding
allocation
burden
proving
competence
defendant
violates
due
process
turn
consider
whether
rule
transgresses
recognized
principle
fundamental
fairness
operation
dowling
respondent
argues
decision
leland
oregon
upheld
right
state
place
defendant
burden
proving
defense
insanity
beyond
reasonable
doubt
compels
conclusion
constitutional
like
finding
insanity
finding
incompetence
necessary
relationship
elements
crime
state
bears
burden
proof
see
also
rivera
delaware
analogy
convincing
significant
differences
claim
incompetence
plea
guilty
reason
insanity
see
drope
missouri
supra
jackson
indiana
competency
hearing
emphasis
defendant
capacity
consult
counsel
comprehend
proceedings
means
test
determine
criminal
responsibility
time
crime
pate
robinson
harlan
dissenting
defendant
incompetent
due
process
considerations
require
suspension
criminal
trial
time
defendant
regains
capacity
participate
defense
understand
proceedings
see
dusky
per
curiam
entry
plea
guilty
reason
insanity
contrast
presupposes
defendant
competent
stand
trial
enter
plea
moreover
due
process
clause
affords
incompetent
defendant
right
tried
drope
missouri
supra
pate
robinson
supra
said
constitution
requires
recognize
insanity
defense
see
powell
texas
california
law
allocation
burden
proof
defendant
affect
competency
determinations
narrow
class
cases
evidence
equipoise
evidence
defendant
competent
strong
evidence
incompetent
see
digilio
cert
denied
cases
recognize
defendant
constitutional
right
tried
legally
incompetent
state
failure
observe
procedures
adequate
protect
defendant
right
tried
convicted
incompetent
stand
trial
deprives
due
process
right
fair
trial
drope
missouri
state
provides
defendant
access
procedures
making
competency
evaluation
however
perceive
basis
holding
due
process
requires
state
assume
burden
vindicating
defendant
constitutional
right
persuading
trier
fact
defendant
competent
stand
trial
petitioner
relies
upon
decisions
said
allocation
burden
proof
defendant
circumstances
inconsistent
rule
pate
robinson
supra
held
defendant
whose
competence
doubt
deemed
waived
right
competency
hearing
digilio
supra
people
mccullum
state
bertrand
supra
contradictory
argue
defendant
may
incompetent
yet
knowingly
intelligently
waive
right
determine
capacity
stand
trial
said
also
contradictory
argue
defendant
may
incompetent
presumed
possess
sufficient
intelligence
able
adduce
evidence
incompetency
might
otherwise
within
grasp
digilio
supra
quoting
pate
robinson
supra
view
question
whether
defendant
whose
competence
doubt
may
waive
right
competency
hearing
quite
different
question
whether
burden
proof
may
placed
defendant
hearing
held
rule
announced
pate
driven
concern
impossible
say
whether
defendant
whose
competence
doubt
made
knowing
intelligent
waiver
right
competency
hearing
competency
hearing
held
however
defendant
entitled
assistance
counsel
estelle
smith
psychiatric
evidence
brought
bear
question
defendant
mental
condition
see
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
see
generally
brakel
parry
weiner
mentally
disabled
law
although
impaired
defendant
might
limited
ability
assist
counsel
demonstrating
incompetence
defendant
inability
assist
counsel
constitute
probative
evidence
incompetence
defense
counsel
often
view
defendant
ability
participate
defense
david
app
ex
rel
roth
zelker
cert
denied
reasonable
minds
may
differ
wisdom
placing
burden
proof
defendant
circumstances
believe
state
may
take
factors
account
making
judgments
allocation
burden
proof
see
basis
concluding
placing
burden
defendant
violates
principle
approved
pate
petitioner
argues
psychiatry
inexact
science
placing
burden
proof
defendant
violates
due
process
requires
defendant
bear
risk
forced
stand
trial
result
erroneous
finding
competency
brief
petitioner
cases
recognize
subtleties
nuances
psychiatric
diagnosis
render
certainties
virtually
beyond
reach
situations
sychiatric
diagnosis
large
extent
based
medical
impressions
drawn
subjective
analysis
filtered
experience
diagnostician
addington
texas
due
process
clause
however
require
state
adopt
one
procedure
another
basis
may
produce
results
favorable
accused
see
patterson
new
york
due
process
require
every
conceivable
step
taken
whatever
cost
eliminate
possibility
convicting
innocent
person
snyder
massachusetts
state
procedure
run
foul
fourteenth
amendment
another
method
may
seem
thinking
fairer
wiser
give
surer
promise
protection
prisoner
bar
consistent
precedents
enough
state
affords
criminal
defendant
whose
behalf
plea
incompetence
asserted
reasonable
opportunity
demonstrate
competent
stand
trial
petitioner
contends
burden
proof
placed
state
allocated
burden
state
variety
issues
implicate
criminal
defendant
constitutional
rights
colorado
connelly
waiver
miranda
rights
nix
williams
inevitable
discovery
evidence
obtained
unlawful
means
matlock
voluntariness
consent
search
lego
twomey
voluntariness
confession
decisions
upon
petitioner
relies
however
control
result
involved
situations
government
sought
introduce
inculpatory
evidence
obtained
virtue
waiver
violation
defendant
constitutional
rights
circumstances
allocating
burden
proof
government
furthers
objective
deterring
lawless
conduct
police
prosecution
ibid
purpose
served
allocating
burden
proof
government
competency
hearing
light
determination
allocation
burden
proof
defendant
offend
due
process
difficult
dispose
petitioner
challenge
presumption
competence
imposed
california
law
defendant
required
make
threshold
showing
incompetence
hearing
required
hearing
defendant
may
prevented
making
decisions
normally
left
discretion
competent
defendant
people
samuel
petitioner
argues
trial
expressed
doubt
defendant
competence
hearing
held
defendant
deprived
right
make
determinations
reserved
competent
persons
irrational
retain
presumption
defendant
competent
rejecting
contention
california
observed
primary
significance
presumption
competence
place
defendant
people
contest
competence
burden
rebutting
terms
presumption
competence
one
affects
burden
proof
see
reason
disturb
california
conclusion
essence
challenged
presumption
restatement
burden
proof
follows
said
presumption
violate
due
process
clause
nothing
today
decision
inconsistent
longstanding
recognition
criminal
trial
incompetent
defendant
violates
due
process
drope
missouri
pate
robinson
see
also
riggins
nevada
kennedy
concurring
judgment
rather
rejection
petitioner
challenge
based
determination
california
procedure
constitutionally
adequate
guard
results
drope
missouri
supra
reflects
considered
view
raditionally
due
process
required
basic
procedural
safeguards
observed
subtle
balancing
society
interests
accused
ha
left
legislative
branch
patterson
new
york
supra
judgment
california
affirmed
concur
judgment
reject
intimation
balancing
equities
inappropriate
evaluating
whether
state
criminal
procedures
amount
due
process
ante
obviously
applied
balancing
test
mathews
eldridge
ake
oklahoma
case
concerning
criminal
procedure
see
ake
distinguished
without
disavowing
analysis
rests
balancing
equities
mathews
eldridge
outlines
remains
useful
guide
due
process
cases
mathews
however
address
question
much
weight
give
historical
practice
context
modern
administrative
procedures
historical
practice
consider
true
new
administrative
regime
established
federal
criminal
sentencing
guidelines
agreed
mathews
may
helpful
determining
process
due
context
see
burns
souter
dissenting
agree
historical
pedigree
give
procedural
practice
presumption
constitutionality
see
patterson
new
york
presumption
must
surely
rebuttable
concept
due
process
perhaps
least
frozen
concept
law
least
confined
history
absorptive
powerful
social
standards
progressive
society
neither
unfolding
content
due
process
particularized
safeguards
bill
rights
disregard
procedural
ways
reflect
national
historic
policy
griffin
illinois
frankfurter
concurring
judgment
historical
status
quo
read
opinion
allow
weight
given
countervailing
considerations
fairness
operation
considerations
much
like
evaluated
mathews
see
ante
less
charitable
reading
opinion
put
odds
many
criminal
due
process
cases
required
institute
procedures
neither
required
common
law
explicitly
commanded
text
constitution
see
griffin
illinois
supra
due
process
right
trial
transcript
appeal
brady
maryland
due
process
right
discovery
exculpatory
evidence
sheppard
maxwell
due
process
right
protection
prejudicial
publicity
courtroom
disruptions
chambers
mississippi
due
process
right
introduce
certain
evidence
gagnon
scarpelli
due
process
right
hearing
counsel
probation
revoked
ake
oklahoma
supra
due
process
right
psychiatric
examination
sanity
significantly
question
determining
whether
placement
burden
proof
fundamentally
unfair
relevant
considerations
include
whether
government
superior
access
evidence
whether
defendant
capable
aiding
garnering
evaluation
evidence
matter
proved
whether
placing
burden
proof
government
necessary
help
enforce
right
right
presumed
innocent
right
free
right
tried
competent
balancing
equities
case
agree
burden
proof
may
constitutionally
rest
defendant
dissent
points
post
competency
determination
based
largely
testimony
psychiatrists
main
concern
prosecution
course
defendant
feign
incompetence
order
avoid
trial
burden
proving
competence
rests
government
defendant
less
incentive
cooperate
psychiatric
investigations
inconclusive
examination
benefit
defense
prosecution
defendant
may
also
less
cooperative
making
available
friends
family
might
information
defendant
mental
state
may
therefore
decide
complete
picture
defendant
competence
obtained
defense
incentive
produce
evidence
possession
potentially
greater
overall
access
information
provided
placing
burden
proof
defense
may
outweigh
danger
close
cases
marginally
incompetent
defendant
brought
trial
unlike
requirement
hearing
psychiatric
examination
placing
burden
proof
government
necessarily
increase
reliability
proceedings
equities
weigh
much
petitioner
favor
rebut
presumption
constitutionality
historical
toleration
procedural
variation
creates
points
ante
cases
placed
burden
proof
government
distinguishable
see
colorado
connelly
burden
proof
government
show
waiver
rights
miranda
arizona
nix
williams
burden
government
show
inevitable
discovery
evidence
obtained
unlawful
means
matlock
burden
government
show
voluntariness
consent
search
lego
twomey
burden
government
show
voluntariness
confession
cases
government
burden
proof
accords
investigatory
responsibilities
obtaining
confession
government
required
ensure
confession
given
voluntarily
searching
private
area
without
warrant
government
generally
required
ensure
owner
consents
search
government
parallel
responsibility
gather
evidence
defendant
competence
justice
blackmun
justice
stevens
joins
dissenting
teofilo
medina
may
mentally
incompetent
state
california
convicted
sentenced
death
one
psychiatrist
testified
incompetent
another
psychiatrist
psychologist
testified
several
experts
testified
express
opinion
competence
instructed
presume
petitioner
medina
competent
jury
returned
finding
competence
know
jury
entirely
undecided
believe
constitution
forbids
trial
conviction
incompetent
person
tolerates
trial
conviction
person
evidence
competency
equivocal
unclear
dissent
right
criminal
defendant
tried
competent
fundamental
adversary
system
justice
drope
missouri
due
process
clause
forbids
trial
conviction
persons
incapable
defending
persons
lacking
capacity
understand
nature
object
proceedings
consult
counsel
assist
preparing
defense
see
also
pate
robinson
right
tried
competent
foundational
right
effective
exercise
defendant
rights
criminal
trial
competence
stand
trial
rudimentary
upon
depends
main
part
rights
deemed
essential
fair
trial
including
right
effective
assistance
counsel
rights
summon
confront
witnesses
right
testify
one
behalf
remain
silent
without
penalty
riggins
nevada
kennedy
concurring
judgment
words
professor
morris
one
world
leading
criminologists
incompetent
persons
really
present
trial
may
able
properly
play
role
accused
person
recall
relevant
events
produce
evidence
witnesses
testify
effectively
behalf
help
confront
hostile
witnesses
project
trier
facts
sense
innocence
morris
madness
criminal
law
cases
clear
right
tried
competent
critical
prerequisite
criminal
process
state
procedures
must
adequate
protect
right
pate
emphasis
added
failure
observe
procedures
adequate
protect
defendant
right
tried
convicted
incompetent
stand
trial
deprives
due
process
right
fair
trial
drope
words
due
process
clause
simply
forbid
state
trying
convicting
person
incompetent
also
demands
adequate
anticipatory
protective
procedures
minimize
risk
incompetent
person
convicted
justice
frankfurter
recognized
related
context
deeply
rooted
principle
society
killing
insane
man
respected
least
minimum
provision
assuring
fair
application
principle
inherent
principle
solesbee
balkcom
dissenting
opinion
anticipatory
protective
procedures
necessary
well
previously
emphasized
difficulty
retrospectively
determining
accused
competence
stand
trial
pate
see
also
drope
dusky
see
generally
miller
germain
retrospective
evaluation
competency
stand
trial
law
psych
expressly
recognized
one
required
procedural
protections
inquiry
hearing
sufficient
doubt
raised
defendant
competency
drope
pate
view
question
case
whether
right
hearing
placing
burden
proving
competence
state
necessary
protect
adequately
underlying
due
process
right
part
company
today
believe
answer
question
affirmative
ii
initial
matter
believe
approach
case
effectively
asks
answers
wrong
doctrinal
question
following
lead
parties
mistakenly
frames
inquiry
terms
whether
apply
standard
takes
derived
language
patterson
new
york
standard
based
functional
balancing
approach
mathews
eldridge
ante
put
choice
drope
pate
need
decide
whether
procedure
imposing
burden
proof
upon
defendant
adequate
protect
constitutional
prohibition
trial
incompetent
persons
however
chooses
patterson
path
announcing
violation
due
process
unless
placing
burden
proof
incompetency
upon
defendant
offends
principle
justice
rooted
traditions
conscience
people
ranked
fundamental
ante
quoting
patterson
separating
primary
right
right
tried
incompetent
subsidiary
right
right
bear
burden
proof
incompetency
acknowledges
primary
right
fundamental
common
law
heritage
determines
subsidiary
right
without
settled
tradition
deserving
constitutional
protection
ante
approach
mistaken
severs
two
integrally
related
procedural
rights
examined
meaningfully
isolation
protections
due
process
clause
borrow
second
justice
harlan
words
simply
series
isolated
points
pricked
terms
specific
level
historic
generality
poe
ullman
dissenting
opinion
taken
approach
pate
drope
recognized
defendant
right
competency
hearing
neither
cases
showing
mere
denial
hearing
doubt
competency
offended
deeply
rooted
traditions
american
people
events
interpret
reliance
patterson
undermine
basic
balancing
government
interests
individual
interest
germane
due
process
inquiry
unwilling
discount
force
tradition
history
patterson
adopt
exclusively
approach
due
process
analysis
relying
morrison
california
patterson
looked
convenience
government
hardship
oppression
defendant
forming
allocation
burden
proof
decisions
manifold
within
limits
reason
fairness
burden
proof
may
lifted
state
criminal
prosecutions
cast
defendant
limits
substance
state
shall
proved
enough
make
defendant
required
repel
proved
excuse
explanation
least
upon
balancing
convenience
opportunities
knowledge
shifting
burden
found
aid
accuser
without
subjecting
accused
hardship
oppression
cf
wigmore
evidence
vol
cases
cited
quoting
morrison
california
emphasis
added
morrison
california
historical
cornerstone
decisions
area
due
process
allocation
burden
proof
considered
constitutionality
california
criminal
statute
forbidding
aliens
eligible
naturalization
farm
statute
provided
state
proved
defendant
used
occupied
farm
land
burden
proving
citizenship
eligibility
naturalization
rested
upon
defendant
see
time
persons
asian
ancestry
generally
eligible
naturalization
see
observed
vast
majority
cases
unfairness
distribution
burden
defendant
asian
ancestry
plainly
observed
evidence
equipoise
defendant
mixed
blood
outward
appearance
readily
reveal
asian
ancestry
promotion
convenience
point
view
prosecution
outweighed
probability
injustice
accused
ibid
thus
concluded
escape
hardship
injustice
outweighing
many
times
procedural
convenience
unless
burden
persuasion
respect
racial
origin
cast
upon
people
consistent
morrison
read
opinion
today
acknowledge
patterson
relieve
evaluating
underlying
fairness
imposing
burden
proof
incompetency
upon
defendant
looks
historical
treatment
burden
proof
competency
proceedings
also
looks
operation
challenged
rule
precedents
ante
eventually
turns
determining
whether
rule
placing
upon
defendant
burden
proof
incompetency
transgresses
recognized
principle
fundamental
fairness
operation
ante
carrying
inquiry
points
defendant
already
entitled
assistance
counsel
psychiatric
evaluation
ante
suggests
well
defense
counsel
view
defendant
ability
assist
defense
ibid
accordingly
concludes
enough
state
affords
criminal
defendant
whose
behalf
plea
incompetence
asserted
reasonable
opportunity
demonstrate
competent
stand
trial
ante
unable
agree
conclusion
clear
ends
engaging
balancing
inquiry
meaningfully
distinguishable
mathews
eldridge
test
earlier
appears
forswear
perplexed
recognizing
careful
balance
constitution
strikes
liberty
order
ante
emphasis
added
intimates
apparent
expertise
criminal
procedure
centuries
common
law
tradition
criminal
process
warrant
less
careful
balancing
favor
substantial
deference
legislative
judgments
ante
due
process
clause
process
clause
remain
convinced
requires
careful
balancing
individual
governmental
interests
stake
determine
process
due
iii
believe
requiring
possibly
incompetent
person
carry
burden
proving
incompetent
called
adequate
within
meaning
decisions
pate
drope
protect
defendant
right
tried
competent
variety
contexts
allocated
burden
proof
prosecution
part
protective
procedures
designed
ensure
integrity
specific
underlying
rights
lego
twomey
example
determined
prosecution
seeks
use
trial
confession
challenged
involuntary
prosecution
must
prove
least
preponderance
evidence
confession
voluntary
defendant
entitled
reliable
determination
confession
fact
voluntarily
rendered
see
also
colorado
connelly
burden
prosecution
show
defendant
waived
miranda
rights
nix
williams
burden
prosecution
show
inevitable
discovery
evidence
obtained
unlawful
means
matlock
burden
prosecution
show
voluntariness
consent
search
equally
weighty
concerns
warrant
imposing
burden
proof
upon
state
suggests
cases
distinguishable
shift
burden
proof
order
deter
lawless
conduct
law
enforcement
prosecutorial
authorities
case
deterrence
irrelevant
ante
anything
distinction
cuts
point
view
deterrence
official
misconduct
investigatory
stage
criminal
process
less
fairness
trial
accurate
determination
defendant
guilt
defendant
ability
understand
participate
trial
accordingly
greater
reason
impose
cost
upon
government
form
burden
proof
ensure
fairness
accuracy
trial
cf
official
misconduct
form
forcible
kidnaping
defendant
trial
violate
defendant
due
process
rights
trial
moreover
given
consideration
interests
wonder
whether
owes
consideration
public
interest
appearance
fairness
criminal
justice
system
trial
persons
whose
competence
evidence
inconclusive
unquestionably
undermine
foundation
system
justice
citizens
confidence
georgia
mccollum
ante
kinds
litigation
plain
burden
proof
lies
may
decisive
outcome
speiser
randall
sure
requirement
hearing
threshold
doubt
competency
provision
psychiatric
evaluation
see
ake
oklahoma
ensure
least
protection
trial
incompetent
persons
yet
cases
evidence
inconclusive
defendant
bearing
burden
proof
incompetency
still
subjected
trial
view
introduces
systematic
unacceptably
high
risk
persons
tried
convicted
unable
follow
participate
proceedings
determining
fate
therefore
agree
reasonable
minds
may
differ
wisdom
placing
burden
proof
likely
incompetent
defendants
ante
second
competency
determination
primarily
medical
psychiatric
determination
competency
determinations
large
turn
testimony
psychiatric
experts
lawyers
although
competency
legal
issue
ultimately
determined
courts
recommendations
mental
health
professionals
exert
tremendous
influence
judicial
determinations
rates
agreement
typically
exceeding
nicholson
johnson
prediction
competency
stand
trial
contribution
demographics
type
offense
clinical
characteristics
psycholegal
ability
psych
citations
omitted
see
also
brakel
parry
weiner
mentally
disabled
law
ed
testimony
psychiatric
experts
may
far
infallible
see
barefoot
estelle
blackmun
dissenting
experts
lawyers
credited
bestinformed
able
gauge
defendant
ability
understand
participate
legal
proceedings
affecting
third
even
assuming
defense
counsel
bestinformed
view
defendant
competency
lawyer
view
likely
outlet
effect
competency
determination
unlike
testimony
medical
specialists
lay
witnesses
testimony
defense
counsel
far
likely
discounted
factfinder
biased
defense
counsel
may
also
discouraged
first
place
testifying
fear
abrogating
ethical
responsibility
privilege
see
aba
criminal
justice
mental
health
standards
commentary
introduction
commentary
pp
way
example
case
hand
come
little
surprise
neither
medina
two
attorneys
among
dozens
persons
testifying
six
days
competency
proceedings
case
tr
witness
list
like
many
psychological
inquiries
competency
evaluations
present
state
mental
sciences
best
hazardous
guess
however
conscientious
solesbee
balkcom
frankfurter
dissenting
see
also
ake
oklahoma
addington
texas
drope
unavoidable
uncertainty
expands
range
cases
factfinder
conclude
evidence
equipoise
however
dismisses
concern
grounds
ue
process
require
every
conceivable
step
taken
whatever
cost
eliminate
possibility
convicting
innocent
person
ante
quoting
patterson
yet
surely
due
process
clause
requires
conceivable
steps
taken
eliminate
risk
erroneous
convictions
search
vain
guiding
principle
analysis
determines
risk
wrongful
conviction
happens
acceptable
allocation
burden
proof
reflects
societal
judgment
risk
error
distributed
litigants
cf
santosky
kramer
standard
proof
said
well
individual
asked
share
equally
society
risk
error
possible
injury
individual
significantly
greater
possible
harm
state
addington
texas
costs
state
bearing
burden
proof
competency
prohibitive
acknowledges
several
already
bear
burden
ante
allocation
burden
proof
make
difference
narrow
class
cases
evidence
equipoise
ante
difficult
cases
state
bear
burden
remitting
defendant
psychological
observation
ensure
competent
defend
see
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
defendant
found
incompetent
shall
delivered
state
hospital
treatment
facility
promote
defendant
speedy
restoration
mental
competence
see
also
jackson
indiana
due
process
clause
allows
state
hold
incompetent
defendant
reasonable
period
time
necessary
determine
whether
substantial
probability
return
competency
narrow
class
cases
evidence
equipoise
state
reasonably
expect
speedily
able
return
defendant
trial
iv
term
reaffirmed
due
process
clause
prevents
taking
measures
undermine
defendant
right
tried
fully
aware
able
defend
riggins
nevada
reversed
due
process
grounds
conviction
defendant
subjected
forcible
administration
antipsychotic
drugs
trial
rejecting
dissent
insistence
actual
prejudice
shown
found
clearly
possible
medications
affected
defendant
ability
follow
proceedings
substance
communication
counsel
emphasis
added
see
also
id
kennedy
concurring
judgment
prosecution
must
show
significant
risk
medication
impair
alter
material
way
defendant
capacity
willingness
react
testimony
trial
assist
counsel
emphasis
added
consider
less
likely
petitioner
medina
tried
sentenced
death
effectively
unable
defend
share
remarkable
confidence
othing
today
decision
inconsistent
longstanding
recognition
criminal
trial
incompetent
defendant
violates
due
process
ante
believe
constitutional
prohibition
convicting
incompetent
persons
remains
fundamental
state
liberty
go
forward
trial
evidence
competency
inconclusive
accordingly
dissent
footnotes
recently
several
members
expressly
declined
limit
mathews
eldridge
balancing
civil
administrative
context
determined
mathews
provides
appropriate
framework
assessing
validity
criminal
rules
procedure
see
burns
souter
joined
relevant
part
white
dissenting
applying
mathews
federal
criminal
sentencing
procedures
stating
mathews
apply
civil
administrative
determinations
mathews
analysis
thus
used
general
approach
determining
procedures
required
due
process
whenever
erroneous
governmental
action
infringe
individual
protected
interest
also
acknowledges
previously
relied
mathews
eldridge
least
two
cases
concerning
criminal
procedure
ante
citing
ake
oklahoma
due
process
requires
appointment
psychiatrist
defendant
sanity
time
offense
significant
factor
trial
raddatz
due
process
require
federal
district
judges
make
de
novo
determination
live
testimony
issues
presented
motion
suppress
claims
clear
mathews
essential
results
reached
ake
raddatz
ante
sure
means
cases
unquestionably
set
forth
full
mathews
test
evaluated
interests
see
ake
raddatz
find
clear
anything
two
cases
specific
rights
asserted
historically
novel
hardly
said
constituted
principle
justice
rooted
traditions
conscience
people
ranked
fundamental