List of criminal competencies
Encyclopedia
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. In insisting on this requirement the law is acting on the premise that society recognizes only the actions of an autonomous individual. This is a list of the most relevant competencies that must be evaluated (if a question of incompetency is raised) in order to proceed.
Criminal law
Criminal law, is the body of law that relates to crime. It might be defined as the body of rules that defines conduct that is not allowed because it is held to threaten, harm or endanger the safety and welfare of people, and that sets out the punishment to be imposed on people who do not obey...
in the United States
United States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
. 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. In insisting on this requirement the law is acting on the premise that society recognizes only the actions of an autonomous individual. This is a list of the most relevant competencies that must be evaluated (if a question of incompetency is raised) in order to proceed.
Criminal Competencies
- Competency to Consent to a Search or Seizure - Fourth AmendmentFourth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause...
(Mapp v. OhioMapp v. OhioMapp v. Ohio, , was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as...
, Katz v. United StatesKatz v. United StatesKatz v. United States, , is a United States Supreme Court case discussing the nature of the "right to privacy" and the legal definition of a "search." The Court’s ruling adjusted previous interpretations of the unreasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment to count immaterial...
, Florida v. RodriguezFlorida v. RodriguezFlorida v. Rodriguez, is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue of involutary search and seizure.-External links:**...
) - Competency to Stand Trial - (Dusky v. United StatesDusky v. United StatesDusky v. United States, , is a landmark decision affirming a defendant's right to have a competency evaluation before proceding to trial. In this case, the court outlined the basic standards for determining competency....
, Panetti v. QuartermanPanetti v. QuartermanPanetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 , is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, ruling that criminal defendants sentenced to death may not be executed if they do not understand the reason for their imminent execution, and that once the state has set an execution date death-row...
) - Competency to Waive Right to Competency - (United States v. Morin)
- Competency to Confess - (Brown v. MississippiBrown v. MississippiBrown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278, , was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that a defendant's involuntary confession that is extracted by police violence cannot be entered as evidence and violates the Due Process Clause....
, Miranda v. ArizonaMiranda v. ArizonaMiranda v. Arizona, , was a landmark 5–4 decision of the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant...
. Colorado v. ConnellyColorado v. ConnellyColorado v. Connelly, , was a U.S. Supreme Court case that was initiated by Francis Connelly, who insisted that his schizophrenic episode rendered him incompetent, nullifying his waiver of his Miranda rights.- Prior history :...
) - Competency to Plead Guilty - (Seiling v. Eyman, Godinez v. MoranGodinez v. MoranGodinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 , was a landmark decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if a defendant was competent to stand trial, they were automatically competent to plead guilty or waive the right to legal counsel.-Circumstances:...
, Godinez, Warden v. Moran) - Competency to Waive the Right to Counsel - (Godinez v. MoranGodinez v. MoranGodinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 , was a landmark decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if a defendant was competent to stand trial, they were automatically competent to plead guilty or waive the right to legal counsel.-Circumstances:...
, McKaskle v. WigginsMcKaskle v. WigginsMcKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court considered the role of standby counsel in a criminal trial where the defendant conducted his own defense...
, Faretta v. CaliforniaFaretta v. CaliforniaFaretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.-Facts of the case:...
) - Competency to Refuse an Insanity Defense - (Whalem v. United States, Frendak v. United StatesFrendak v. United StatesFrendak v. United States, 408 A.2d 364 is a landmark case in which United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided that a judge could not impose an insanity defense over the defendant's objections.-Circumstances:...
) - Competency to Testify
- Legal Requirements for Testimonial Competence - Federal Rules of EvidenceFederal Rules of EvidenceThe is a code of evidence law governing the admission of facts by which parties in the United States federal court system may prove their cases, both civil and criminal. The Rules were enacted in 1975, with subsequent amendments....
, Rule 601 - Assessment of Witness Credibility - Federal Rules of EvidenceFederal Rules of EvidenceThe is a code of evidence law governing the admission of facts by which parties in the United States federal court system may prove their cases, both civil and criminal. The Rules were enacted in 1975, with subsequent amendments....
, Rule 508
- Legal Requirements for Testimonial Competence - Federal Rules of Evidence
- Competency to Be Sentenced and Executed - (Saddler v. United States)
- Competency at the Sentencing Proceedings (Chavez v. United States)
- Competency to Be Imprisoned or Executed - (Ford v. WainwrightFord v. WainwrightFord v. Wainwright, ', was the case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the common law rule that the insane cannot be executed; therefore the petitioner is entitled to a competency evaluation and to an evidentiary hearing in court on the question of his competency to be...
, Penry v. LynaughPenry v. LynaughPenry v. Lynaugh, , sanctioned the death penalty for mentally retarded offenders because the Court determined executing the mentally retarded was not "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment...
)
- Competency to Refuse Treatment - (Perry v. LouisianaPerry v. LouisianaPerry v. Louisiana is a case brought before the U.S. Supreme Court over the legality of the forcibly medicating a death row inmate with a mental disorder in order to render him competent to be executed.-Circumstances:...
)