Medina V. California
From Conservapedia In Medina v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court established by a 7-2 vote limits on the due process rights of criminal defendants who assert an insanity defense. Justice Kennedy wrote for the Court:
| “ | it is enough that the State affords the criminal defendant on whose behalf a plea of incompetence is asserted a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that he is not competent to stand trial. | ” |
Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 451 (1992).
Justice Blackmun, joined by Justice Stevens, dissented as follows:
| “ | One psychiatrist testified [the defendant] was incompetent. Another psychiatrist and a psychologist testified he was not. Several other experts testified but did not express an opinion on competence. Instructed to presume that petitioner Medina was competent, the jury returned a finding of competence. For all we know, the jury was entirely undecided. I do not believe a Constitution that forbids the trial and conviction of an incompetent person tolerates the trial and conviction of a person about whom the evidence of competency is so equivocal and unclear. I dissent. | ” |
Id. at 456 (Blackmun, J., dissenting).
Categories: [United States Supreme Court Cases]
↧ Download as ZWI file | Last modified: 02/16/2023 12:22:12 | 3 views
☰ Source: https://www.conservapedia.com/Medina_v._California | License: CC BY-SA 3.0
ZWI signed:
ZWI viewer
by the 
KSF
KSF