Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Grits for Breakfast

Criminal Law

: Grits for Breakfast

Memo to SCOTUS: If a defendant is spouting "gibberish" at trial, maybe they weren't really "competent" to begin with

By Gritsforbreakfast

If a mentally ill person chooses to represent themselves at trial and can't put on a coherent defense that rises above the level of babbling, I'd think that calls into question the quality of the court's decision that the person was "competent" to stand trial in the first place.But attorneys for states and the federal government argued at SCOTUS this week in Indiana v. Edwards that in such cases, courts should create a second standard that says a person is "competent" to stand trial but that only appointed representation can speak for them. (Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSBlog has a writeup of the oral arguments, and the briefs are available here.)I don't see how any right thinking person can look at the arguments and not think many people are being approved for trial who are not really "competent" in a meaningful sense...continue to full post

Full post as published by Grits for Breakfast on March 27, 2008 (boomark / email).