psych & legal

noting potential side effects of psychiatric medications, significant liberty interest in avoiding unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs; however there is a stronger interest in ensuring the safety of prisoners/staff

given its side effects, involuntary medication of a defendant during trial isn't permitted, absent a finding of overriding justification & a determination of medical appropriateness

court permitted incompetent defendants to appear at trial without medication, provided that when they decide to do so they are medicated & competent to make such a decision

sufficient present ability to consult with attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding; rational as well as factual understanding of proceedings against him

state may not commit a person on incompetency grounds unless there is a substantial probability that competency will be restored & even then may do so only for a reasonable period of time

court found a person is competent to stand trial is competent to waive an attorney

the 8th amendment (banning cruel & unusual punishment) prohibits execution of those who are unaware of the punishment that they are about to receive & why they are to suffer it

in making the decision to order a competency evaluation, the court must take in to account & weigh any factors suggestive of mental illness

competence despite amnesia had to do with the ability to consult with and assist lawyer; can testify to his behalf; extent to which evidence can be reconstructed; how strong is prosecution's case

the defendants decision regarding assertionof the insanity defense be followed when the defendant is competent to make it, regardless of likely success of the defense

it is contradictory to argue that a defendant may be incompetent & yet knowingly waive his right to have the court determine his capacity to stand trial

requires the trial judge to calibrate carefully the effect of medication on a defendant's ability to understand & consult with counsel participate in the proceedings and to consult with counsel

placed the burden of proving incomptency on the party raising the question (usually the defense)

executing individuals who are mentally retarded is unconstitutional

court found nothing unconstitutional about threat of greater change if does not plead guilty because the charge was legitimate & the defendant was free to accept/reject prosecution's offer

although fear of death penalty may have resulted in a plea to life in prison- it did not coerce it...
only coercion if had proven so gripped by fear of the death penalty that he could not make rational decisions or his own behavior