Waive Jury Trial</li></li></ul><li>Four Miranda Rights <br />The right to remain silent <br />That anything said can be used against the suspect in a court of law <br />The right to the presence of an attorney <br />That if the suspect cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed prior to any questioning.<br />
Waiver of Miranda Rights must be Knowing<br /><ul><li>The suspect’s ability to know or understand what each of the four Miranda rights mean.
This can be impacted by the manner in which he/she is informed of the rights.
Did the police read the rights quickly or slowly?
Did the suspect read the rights and sign a waiver of rights form?
Was the suspect merely handed the waiver form and asked to sign in the appropriate line without having being read the rights?</li></li></ul><li>Waiver of Miranda Rights must be Intelligent<br /><ul><li>The defendant must have a rational understanding of the consequences, connotations, and implications of the act of waiver and to the form of reasoning ("rational") which lies behind it.</li></li></ul><li>Waiver of Miranda Rights must be Voluntary <br /><ul><li>Waiver of Miranda rights is voluntary unless the defendant can show that his/her decision to waive his/her rights and speak to the police was the product of police misconduct and coercion that overcame the defendant's free will. </li></li></ul><li>Competency to be Executed<br /><ul><li>Must be able to comprehend
Defendants can only prepare for death if they are aware that it is pending shortly.</li></li></ul><li>Dusky Standard (Dusky v. United States, 1960)<br /><ul><li>Whether the defendant has:
Sufficient present ability to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.
A rational as well as factual understanding of proceedings against him.</li></li></ul><li>Texas Standard competency to Stand Trial -Dusky Standard<br /><ul><li>Sufficient present ability to consult with his or her lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or
A rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against her/him.</li></li></ul><li>Competency to Sentenced andCompetency to Testify <br /><ul><li>Same Standard as Competency to Stand Tial</li></li></ul><li>Competency to Stand Trial<br /><ul><li>Individual is either found competent to stand trial or incompetent
Can the defendant be brought to competence within a reasonable amount of time (Jackson v. Indiana, 1972)
Defendants can only be confined for mental health treatment for a reasonable period of time to determine whether the individual can be restored to competence or whether a substantial probability exists that competency can be restored (e.g. mental retardation versus a psychotic episode).</li></li></ul><li>Incompetent to Stand Trial<br /><ul><li>For less severe offenses, charges can be dropped with the requirement to seek treatment or better supervision.
Can be hospitalized for treatment to bring the defendant to competence.</li></li></ul><li>Competency to Stand Trial Evaluation Texas<br /><ul><li>Section 46B Criminal Code of Procedure State of Texas
Federal Rule of Evidence 704 allows mental health experts to testify to the ultimate issue of the defendant’s pretrial status (competence to stand trial).</li></li></ul><li>Competency EvaluationsCompetency to Stand Trial <br /><ul><li>Most common mental health inquiry in the legal system
Typically raised by the defense though can be raised by prosecution or the court
Sometimes raised as a way of gaining additional time to prepare for a case
Duty of the judge to determine the defendant’s competence; will use the psychologist’s opinion, but does not need to follow the opinion</li></li></ul><li>Competency to Stand Trial Evaluation<br /><ul><li>Examiner should inform defendant about the