Competence to Stand Trial ›

The Ability to Make Relevant Decisions: Implications for Competence to Stand Trial Evaluations.  Thomas Grisso, Ph.D.,  Law and Psychiatry Program, University of Massachusetts Medical School 

(Key words: Competence, CST, Decisions, Decision-Making)

Abbot A., a juvenile v. Commonwealth 2010

Summary: The SJC finds that an individual who is determined incompetent to stand trial can still be subject to a dangerousness hearing under Ch. 276 § 58a. The court emphasizes the need to determine the reason for lack of competency in determining how long and under what provisions an individual can be held. While the court, in this case addresses a juvenile matter, the case is applicable to both adults and juveniles.

Commonwealth v. Adkinson (2011)

Battered Woman Syndrome, Competence to Stand Trial

Commonwealth v. Crowley

Commonwealth v. DelVerde

Commonwealth v. Duquette

Commonwealth v. Federici

Commonwealth v. Lombardi

Commonwealth v. Louraine

Commonwealth v. Simpson

Commonwealth v. Vailes

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Competence to Stand Trial Standard

Drope v. Missouri

Dusky v. United States

Godinez v. Moran

In re Arthur Lee Hinnant, petitioner 1997

Summary: In this case the SJC addresses whether an individual who is incompetent to stand trial due to a severe closed head injury can be subject to a rendition hearing. The Court finds that an individual must understand the proceedings and be able to consult with counsel for the rendition hearing to proceed. If the individual is not competent, then the extradition is stayed until such time as his competency is restored.

(Key words: Competence to stand trial, rendition, head injury)

Indiana v. Edwards

Placeholder entry

This section or sub-section is awaiting court cases, articles or other submissions.

Sell v. United States

(Competence to Stand Trial & Inpatient Commitment, Federal Case)

Tarasoff v. The University Of California (1976)

U.S. v. Duhon, W.D.La., 2000

Keywords: Competence to stand trial and  mental retardation

Summary:  The Federal Court deals with a case of an individual with mental retardation and whether he can be restored to competence. The Court finds that “rote” learning is not sufficient to establish competence; rather,  an individual needs to have a cognitive/rational understanding and be able to apply the factual understanding, not just recite it.