wonder if it would be overkill if I were to put in dictionary definitions of you know answers to the questions or if this would be good enough ... could polish some more ... could refer to the fed rules of procedure and evidence and of course bar association ethics for a few more rules dealing with the object and nature of the court proceeding and ability to aid in the defense - but I wonder if since I have some of all of that in other parts if the below is adequate - without being to facetious course still in draft and could use some polishing - but I have answered two different sets of questions ... both posed in different words both asking the same thing ... anyone want to comment on you know ... did I answer ... competently enough or or or am I a mo re awwwwww nnnnn ... Christopher Sebastian but I understand I really do - understand - do you understand that I understand cause quite understandable and if you DON t ss - den ewwww rr ---- (1) “experts shall first consider factors related to the issue of whether the defendant meets the criteria for competence to proceed (e.g. competency to stand trial); that is, whether the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether the defendant has a rational, as well as factual, understanding of the pending proceedings. --- undt ---- b. Competency to Stand Trial – A person shall be considered mentally competent to stand trial on criminal charges if the proofs shall establish: (1) That the defendant has the mental capacity to appreciate his presence in relation to time, place and things; and appreciate - love presence - i time - life place - usa things - money for meter for van ... gosh i love life here in the usa and the fact that i have money for the meter for the van, parked by the courthouse in washington dc, on the eastern seaboard of the united states at circa 2:30 pm on september 4th ... hmmm is it mid atlantic or eastern standard or should i use GMT: Greenwich Mean Time - World Time / Time in every ... wwp.greenwichmeantime/ \l ⦁ webcache.googleusercontent/search?q=cache:hbHqllOCpQYJ:wwp.greenwichmeantime/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us ⦁ /search?biw=1093&bih=538&q=related:wwp.greenwichmeantime/+greenwich+mean+time&tbo=1&sa=X&ei=Z0PyU9SlJMiJogSJ4IKABg&ved=0CCEQHzAA Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). What time is it anywhere in the world? What is GMT? Complete guide to time and time zones; summer time and daylight-saving ... Time Zones - Time zone conversion - Eastern Time - What is GMT? Greenwich Mean Time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_Mean_Time \l ⦁ webcache.googleusercontent/search?q=cache:NsxPlLUENBgJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_Mean_Time+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us ⦁ /search?biw=1093&bih=538&q=related:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_Mean_Time+greenwich+mean+time&tbo=1&sa=X&ei=Z0PyU9SlJMiJogSJ4IKABg&ved=0CCwQHzAB Wikipedia Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) originally referred to the mean solar time at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, London, which later became adopted as a global ... Western European Time - Royal Observatory, Greenwich - UTC±00:00 time ... at rm 210 - @ 500 Indiana Ave NW #6000, Washington, DC 20001 Superior Court of D.C., Address --- also see exhibit of plaque for martial arts teaching vis place space and time - expertise - (2) That his elementary mental processes are such that he comprehends: (a) That he is in a court of justice charged with a criminal offense; i hope i get back to the van ... before the quarters run out ... if i get back ... to the van ... (b) That there is a judge on the bench; somebody with a priest mm oo mm oo but not so tailored .... is looking stern ... and chewing gum at the same time ... looks like she has some humming machine and is whispering to the advisor who isnt and to the other guy who is putting blinders on and shoving a poster under the bench ... or is it a dai ... anyway ... over the hiss i think i can hear ... dismiss dismiss ... the lady is kind of elegant looking even tho in moo moo and that is the darnesst cleric collar i have ever seen ... yup i thing she does something like ... trier of facts kind of stuff ... and mediates the arguments of the defence advisor who isnt and the prosecutor who is waving a simms motion wildly and looks like he is trying to light the document on fire ... which i think is obstruction of justice and a fire marshal code ... oh the elegant lady also seems to have a tattoo of the us code ... and some cites ... hmm .. maybe it is just henna or cliff notes ... on the palm next to some kind of crab mallet ... her name is the Honorable Judge Bush and she is looking stern again ... mm aiiiii www aiiiiiiii ... (c) That there is a prosecutor present who will try to convict him of a criminal charge; a cabal of them specifically among others - some named - Clint Gerdine, esq. - Veronica Jennings, esq., - LShauntee Robertson, esq. - and that their role is to prosecute while upholding my due process rights in the sense that for instance they are not allowed to willfully withhold exculpatory or impeachment evidence or networth finding evidence specifically when requested from them in discovery cause in their possession - like public documents in the governments possession - cause malicious prosecutions can be so malicious that it is a criminal effort - see laws dealing with: imparting and conveying false information - withholding evidence and ubstruction of justice, see theft by extortion under color of law - number - 1 thru 7 inclusive of 2 3 4 5 and 6 - exhibit (d) That he has a lawyer who will undertake to defend him against that charge; unless depraved and unethical in breach of fiduciary responsibility who is absconding with defendants rights - for instance the right to objectives and tactics not questioned when the lawyer who questions has no legitimate role in the proceedings cause the cja rules say defendant - has a networth that upon discovery honored would show - public defender not eligible not to mention not wanted especially when there to ... in deepest darkest fashion with depravity and despicable behavior tries to steal defendants rights to fair trial - but in theory yes d would be the norm and the standard - in fact defendant has all the evidence he needs to show the lawyer is deficient in character and in adequate defense ... efforts ... tho billing the treasury as if he were in contract performance = i.e. fraud since not in good faith contract performance and that would be fraud ... against the defendant and fraud against the treasury ... cause he is supposed to be paid to uphold the law ... not to make a mockery and travesty of such ... for .. pay. ergo the creep i got is stealing from every man woman and child taxpayer - so that he can savage the Constitution - due process clause - and of course others like the 13th amendment ... plus plus. (e) That he will be expected to tell to the best of his mental ability the facts surrounding him at the time and place where the alleged violation was committed if he chooses to testify and understands the right not to testify; that he defendant does choose and has relayed facts and circumstances surounding the instant allegation - and has done so while hampered with a sabotaging defense lawyer - and has done so with the expectation that such information will be used - for impeachment and networth purposes - since the information relayed is impeachment and networth information also information dealing with the circumstances surrounding the instant allegation - and further defendant has relayed the information to the lawyer defense and some to the prosecutor and some to the court thru the clerk of the court in timely and seasonable fashion since defendant has assumed the right and the role of self representing defendant tho that has been qualified - rights to do such - with sabotaging lawyer and cabal ... seen and involved on the record - but so that the response is very clear - defendant is relaying the info - as a self representing pro se individual who is not expecting to testify is expecting to use his right to not testify but does expect the circumstances surrounding the instant allegations which he defendant provided (in pretrial proceedings and in appropriate due process format seasonably) to be used since introduce ... for defense objectives and tactics. (f) That there is or may be a jury present to pass upon evidence adduced as to guilt or innocence of such charge or, that if he should choose to enter into plea negotiations or to plead guilty, that he comprehend the consequences of a guilty plea and that he be able to knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive those rights which are waived upon such entry of a guilty plea; and defendant expects a jury trial and has asked for a speedy jury trial - this cause of right to have a jury trial is fundemental in our system of jurisprudence ... when ... requested in seasonable fashion - and when not robbed of such right and or sabotaged out of such by deficient advisors (g) That he has the ability to participate in an adequate presentation of his defense. so far has adequate documentation of less than adequate presentations of advisor who isnt ... shrink who prevericated .... prosecutor who didnt produce discovery upon request and of course judge who didnt read ... defense material entered into the record ... for finding of each fact and conclusion of law presented the court for adequate defense ... and of course a judge who took the liberty to waive defendants right to adequate presentation of defense in evidenciary hearing - and defendant filed an appeal for his defense pro se - and the appeal was won - to degree ... enough ... for adequate protection of defendant from criminal effort in criminal enterprise to aid and abet after the fact theft by extortion under color of law - all legal technical terms that defendant ... can also use and present for adequate defense ... in impeachment and networth finding terms and matters entailed in the misdemeanor trial - in which defendant is in the process of participating in ... adequately ... despite ... others inadequacies. (2) In considering the issue of competence to proceed (competency to stand trial), the examining experts shall consider and include in their report: (A) Competency to Proceed or Competency to Stand Trial evaluations evaluated the defendant’s capacity to: (i) appreciate the charges or allegations against the defendant; the charges is a misdemeanor charge with allegations of possession of cds. (ii) Appreciate the range and nature of possible penalties, if applicable, that may be imposed in the proceedings against the defendant; up to one year in prison if - due process rights are not sabotaged so that defendant is robbed of right to due process - proceedures which are defined and delineated in law - cause if such occurs - then the abuse means much more penalty which would not be legit penalty - inclusive of torture and ankang - see slavery and involuntary servitude and attempted murder by poisoning and lying in wait - (iii) Understand the adversary nature of the legal process; adversary in terms of citing laws and presentation of facts and legal supporting arguments for adjudication thru findings by the triers of fact judge and if/when invoked jury ... (iv) Disclose to counsel facts pertinent to the proceedings at issue; also known as ability to aid in defense - be they facts of law or evidence causal facts in terms of the circumstances surrounding the instant allegatios ... (v) Manifest appropriate courtroom behavior; like dont spit or hit anyone - be honest and know when to object - in terms of your honor i object ... the advisor ... isnt ... (vi) Testify relevantly ... with use of laws to support such testimony ... and with use of evidence to support such testimony - if of course not invoking the 5th ... where you dont have to testify - but still have to understand the object and nature of the court proceedings and still have a right to objectives and tactics if self representing or objectives and lawyer does tactics if ... legit lawyer .. tactics that meet the objectives .. and of course still have to be able to provide ... a defense in terms of relevant and legal ... defense with relevant and legal evidence production capacity ... yup yup ... ---------- 2 blocks from American University! English (US) · Privacy · Terms · Cookies · Advertising · More Facebook © 2014 News Feed \l https://facebook/christopher.sebastian.1884?fref=nf https://facebook/christopher.sebastian.1884?fref=nf Christopher Sebastian added 6 new photos. 28 mins · \l the things one reads while researching shrink websites - this one - I cant use - maybe hunter doh - but the others ... hay I love research already done - you know - research - and such - yup pity the guy doesnt practice around here - ah well still a good cull for the arguments and precendence setting laws cited etc - yup see if you like this one The test for competence to be executed enunciated in Justice Powell’s concurring opinion is whether the prisoner is aware of his impending execution and the reason for it. State v. Perry (Louisiana Supreme Court, 1992) The Court ruled you cannot force an inmate on death row who is incompetent to be executed, to be medicated in order to restore his competency to be executed. how about not eligible to be medicated or executed ... cause sane and just a misdemeanor wherein ... all the defendant wants is a jury to review his evidence ... which a thug is blocking ... well a couple ... in coercive effort to obstruct justice and impart and convery false info and of course withhold evidence ... authenticated evidence ... yup ... the psychopaths favorite method of murder ... slow dissolving of organs and brain ... cause they hate the sudden death part ... if the victim is lucky ... yup yup ... drop ss dead ... has different connotation with forced ... drops ... and we arent talking tears drops .... eeeeeeee d err ... nnnnn ewwww ... cc eeeee d ... ed ... --- somehow my stress level is mounting ... as I re eeeee ad d ... Pate v. Robinson (US Supreme Court 1966) The Supreme Court held that the question of competency to stand trial may be raised at ANY time during the criminal proceedings. Furthermore, they held that the Court had an obligation to raise the question after being confronted with evidence that would raise a “bona fide doubt” as to the defendant’s competence, whether or not defense counsel requested a competency evaluation. In the Court’s opinion, failure to observe procedures adequate to protect a defendant’s right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent to stand trial is a deprivation of due process. Drope v. Missouri (US Supreme Court 1975) The Supreme Court held that any evidence of a defendant’s possible incompetence to stand trial must be addressed regardless of the stage of the proceedings. failure of the court to make further inquiry in such a situation violates due process. The court found that a number of factors may call for a competency evaluation including: (1) Evidence of a defendant’s irrational behavior; (2) The defendant’s demeanor at trial; and (3) Any prior medical opinion on the defendant’s competency. The court found that all of these factors are relevant in determining whether further inquiry is required, but that even one of the factors standing alone might, in some circumstances, be sufficient to warrant further inquiry. Cooper v. Oklahoma (US Supreme Court 1996) In regard to burden of proof for competency to stand trial, the Court ruled Oklahoma’s law that allowed the State to try a defendant who is more likely than not incompetent was unconstitutional as it violated the Due Process Clause. In other words, the State must have the burden of proof by at least preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is competent to proceed with trial. Indiana v. Edwards (US Supreme Court, 2008) The Supreme Court held that the ability for a defendant to actually represent himself and conduct his own trial is a different standard than being competent to stand trial or waive representation. That is, a trial court may determine that a defendant is competent to stand trial but not competent to represent himself and therefore “force” the defendant to accept representation. This decision held that the standard to represent oneself would be determined by the trial judge in each particular case. Godinez v. Moran (US Supreme Court 1993) The competency standard for a defendant to plead guilty or waive the right to counsel does not have to be higher or even different than the Dusky standard for Competency to Stand Trial. The Court held that there was no reason for the competency standard for either of those decisions to be higher than that for standing trial. This was based on the Court’s opinion that the decision to plead guilty is no more complicated than the sum total of decisions that a defendant may have to make during the course of a trial, such as whether to testify, whether to waive a jury trial, and whether to cross-examine witnesses for the prosecution. In addition, the Court held the decision to waive counsel did not require an appreciably higher level of mental functioning than the decision to waive other constitutional rights. The Court rejected the argument that a defendant who chooses to represent himself must have greater powers of comprehension, judgment and reason than would be necessary to stand trial with the aid of an attorney. The Court held that a higher standard was not necessary to ensure that a defendant is competent to represent himself, because the ability to do so has no bearing upon his competence to CHOOSE to represent himself. Simply put, the competence in question is the ability to WAIVE the right to counsel, NOT the ability to represent oneself. The court also held that finding a defendant competent is not all that is necessary before he may be permitted to enter a guilty plea or waive right to counsel. In addition, the trial court must satisfy itself that the waiver is KNOWING, INTELLIGENT, and VOLUNTARY. This case superseded Seiling v. Eyman (9th Circuit 1973), which set the standard for Competency to Plead Guilty as the “reasoned choice” standard. Estelle v. Smith (US Supreme Court, 1981) The U.S. Supreme Court held that information obtained in a court-ordered competency to stand trial evaluation as to the issue of future dangerousness was inadmissible at the penalty phase of a trial if the defendant had not been warned of his right to remain silent and that any statements he made could be used against him. The Court held that admission of such evidence was a violation of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and the 6th Amendment right of right to counsel since defense counsel was not informed in advance that the examination would cover the issue of future dangerousness. The Court noted that there was no distinction between the guilt and penalty phases of the trial with regard to the defendant’s rights. Furthermore, the Court noted that the defendant’s responses in an in-custody, court ordered evaluation could not be considered to have been given “freely and voluntarily” unless the defendant had been informed of his rights. Jackson v. Indiana (U.S. Supreme Court, 1972) The court ruled that incompetent defendants may not be committed indefinitely. A person committed to a mental hospital based solely on account of incompetency to stand trail cannot be held more than a reasonable period of time necessary to determine if they will attain competency in the future. “Due process requires that the nature and duration of commitment bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed.” If after a reasonable period of time it is determined it is unlikely that the defendant will regain competency, he must either be civilly committed through proceedings applicable to those not charged with a crime or be released. Failure to conform to this procedure is a violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Wilson v. U.S. (DC Circuit of Appeals, 1968) This ruling gave the judge guidelines on how to evaluate if a person with amnesia has had a fair trial. It was ruled that amnesia alone does not render a defendant incompetent to stand trial. Factors to be considered in determining competency of an amnestic defendant include the extent to which the amnesia affects the defendant’s ability to: (1) Assist counsel; (2) Testify on his own behalf; and (3) Extrinsically reconstruct the events of a case. Other considerations included; (1) The strength of the State’s case; (2) The extent to which the State assisted in the extrinsic reconstruction of events; and (3) Any other facts or circumstances which would indicate whether or not the defendant had a fair trial. North Carolina v. Alford (US Supreme Court, 1970) The Supreme Court ruling held that a guilty plea is valid if it represents a voluntary, knowing and intelligent choice among reasonable alternatives. It is not compelled within the meaning of the 5th Amendment even if it is entered to avoid a harsh penalty, such as in the case of the death penalty. Choosing to enter a “best interest” plea such as this is now known as an Alford Plea. Colorado v Connelly (US Supreme Court, 1986) This case dealt with how to determine if a confession is voluntary. The Court held that competency to confess is dependent on whether or not: (1) The confession is VOLUNTARY and free from susceptible coercion; (2) Waiver of Miranda Rights is voluntary, and (3) The defendant’s reliability is impaired by any mental disability. The Court found that coercive police activity was a necessary predicate to finding that a confession is not “voluntary.” After Connelly, statements not caused by police misconduct are admissible regardless of defendant’s mental state unless the defendant did not understand he could remain silent (i.e. understand his Miranda rights). Sell v. US (US Supreme Court, 2003) The Court held that medication to restore competency to stand trial for serious offenses could be administered involuntarily under certain circumstances. Because of this case, Competency to Stand Trial evaluations now often also have to offer an opinion regarding if the defendant should be forced to receive psychiatric medications based on the Sell criteria. Competency to Be Executed Landmark Case & Point yup this set of questions should be good enough answer wise ... with a lil editing ... purrfect ... so now to work on the hmmm contract ... yup ... need to work on that ... finish that ... and then back to the informational motions and you know legal beagle stuff ... eh eh au up against the wall ... eh ... ewww ... cb day???
Posted on: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 06:09:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015