7 Cited authorities

Drope v. Missouri
420 U.S. 162 (1975) Cited 2,909 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant's "demeanor at trial" may establish a need for further inquiry into the defendant's competency
Cooper v. Oklahoma
517 U.S. 348 (1996) Cited 931 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that state law presuming criminal defendant is competent to stand trial unless he proves incompetence by clear and convincing evidence violates Due Process
Dusky v. United States
362 U.S. 402 (1960) Cited 3,986 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the standard for competence to stand trial is whether the defendant has "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding" and has "a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him."
U.S. v. Chischilly
30 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 1994) Cited 168 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding a confession to be voluntary, where the defendant had memory problems, brain abnormalities, and was arguably mentally retarded
U.S. v. Frank
956 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1991) Cited 140 times
Affirming the district court's decision to reject the testimony of the defense experts and give greater weight to the Government's experts
U.S. v. Hoskie
950 F.2d 1388 (9th Cir. 1991) Cited 28 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court committed clear error by finding the defendant competent to stand trial
Section 4241 - Determination of mental competency to stand trial to undergo postrelease proceedings [1]
18 U.S.C. § 4241 Cited 4,390 times 7 Legal Analyses
Explaining that after a facility director issues a certification, the district court must "hold a hearing . . . to determine the competency of the defendant"

USA v. Arroyo-Lopez et al

7 Cited authorities

Drope v. Missouri

Holding that a defendant's "demeanor at trial" may establish a need for further inquiry into the defendant's competency

Cooper v. Oklahoma

Holding that state law presuming criminal defendant is competent to stand trial unless he proves incompetence by clear and convincing evidence violates Due Process

Dusky v. United States

Holding that the standard for competence to stand trial is whether the defendant has "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding" and has "a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him."

U.S. v. Chischilly

Holding a confession to be voluntary, where the defendant had memory problems, brain abnormalities, and was arguably mentally retarded

U.S. v. Frank

Affirming the district court's decision to reject the testimony of the defense experts and give greater weight to the Government's experts

U.S. v. Hoskie

Holding that the district court committed clear error by finding the defendant competent to stand trial

Section 4241 - Determination of mental competency to stand trial to undergo postrelease proceedings [1]

Explaining that after a facility director issues a certification, the district court must "hold a hearing . . . to determine the competency of the defendant"