Ana sayfa
/
Hukuk
/
4. This case held that it is "contradictory to argue that a defendant may be incompetent,and yet knowingly or intelligently "waive" his right to have the court determine his capacity to stand trial:"A separate competency hearing would be required to do so. A Dusky v. U.S. (1960) B Pate v. Robinson (1966) C Drope v. Missouri (1975) D Medina v. California (1972) E None of the above

Soru

4. This case held that it is "contradictory to argue that a defendant may be incompetent,and yet knowingly or intelligently "waive"
his right to have the court determine his capacity to stand trial:"A separate competency hearing would be required to do so.
A Dusky v. U.S. (1960)
B Pate v. Robinson (1966)
C Drope v. Missouri (1975)
D Medina v. California (1972)
E None of the above

4. This case held that it is "contradictory to argue that a defendant may be incompetent,and yet knowingly or intelligently "waive" his right to have the court determine his capacity to stand trial:"A separate competency hearing would be required to do so. A Dusky v. U.S. (1960) B Pate v. Robinson (1966) C Drope v. Missouri (1975) D Medina v. California (1972) E None of the above

Çözüm

4.5276 Voting
avatar
Yelda
Usta · 5 yıl öğretmeni
Uzman doğrulaması

Cevap

The case you are referring to is B Pate v. Robinson (1966). In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that it is contradictory to argue that a defendant may be incompetent and yet knowingly or intelligently waive his right to have the court determine his capacity to stand trial. The Court emphasized the necessity of a separate competency hearing when there is a question about a defendant's mental competence.
Derecelendirmek için tıklayın: