Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Every year just over 5% of all felony defendants, over 60,000 people are evaluated for competency to stand trial(CST). Of those evaluated, only around 11-30% are deemed incompetent. [9] Competency to stand trial depends only on the defendants current mental state and is entirely separate from their mental state at the time of the crime.
A Durham rule, product test, or product defect rule is a rule in a criminal case by which a jury may determine a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity because a criminal act was the product of a mental disease. Examples in which such rules were articulated in common law include State v. Pike (1870) and Durham v. United States (1954).
United States federal laws governing offenders with mental diseases or defects (18 U.S.C. §§ 4241–4248) provide for the evaluation and handling of defendants who are suspected of having mental diseases or defects. The laws were completely revamped by the Insanity Defense Reform Act in the wake of the John Hinckley Jr. verdict.
However, there must be a formal institutional hearing, the prisoner must be found to be dangerous to himself or others, the prisoner must be diagnosed with a serious mental illness, and the mental health care professional must state that the medication prescribed is in the prisoner's best interest. 14th 1992 Riggins v. Nevada
A defendant may recover from a mental illness or disability, and a court may require a defendant to undergo treatment in an effort to render him competent to stand trial. For example, in 1989, Kenneth L. Curtis of Stratford, Connecticut was found mentally incompetent to stand trial following the murder of his estranged girlfriend. But years ...
Durham v. United States, 214 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1954), [1] is a criminal case articulating what became known as the Durham rule for juries to find a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity: "an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect."
O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in mental health law ruling that a state cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends.
List of criminal competencies is a listing of the various types of competencies relevant to the defendant in criminal law in the United States.In the U.S. the law is permeated with competency issues since a state may not subject an individual who is "incompetent" to trial on criminal charges.