Ana sayfa
/
Hukuk
/
3. This case decided that the test of competence to stand trial "must be whether (the defendant)has present sufficient ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding [and]and a factual understanding of the proceedings against him." A Dusky v. U.S. (1960) B Strickland v. Washington (1984) C Lafter v. Cooper (2012) D Kahler v. Kansas (2020) E Medina v. California (1972)

Soru

3. This case decided that the test of competence to stand trial "must be whether (the defendant)has present sufficient ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding [and]and a factual understanding of the proceedings against him." A Dusky v. U.S. (1960) B Strickland v. Washington (1984) C Lafter v. Cooper (2012) D Kahler v. Kansas (2020) E Medina v. California (1972)

3. This case decided that the test of competence to stand trial "must be whether (the defendant)has present sufficient ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding [and]and a factual understanding of the proceedings against him." A Dusky v. U.S. (1960) B Strickland v. Washington (1984) C Lafter v. Cooper (2012) D Kahler v. Kansas (2020) E Medina v. California (1972)

Çözüm

4.1139 Voting
avatar
Cemil
Usta · 5 yıl öğretmeni
Uzman doğrulaması

Cevap

Dusky v. U.S. (1960)<br /><br />The case of Dusky v. U.S. established the standard for determining a defendant's competence to stand trial. The Supreme Court ruled that the test must assess whether the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with their lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether they have a factual understanding of the proceedings against them.
Derecelendirmek için tıklayın: