Which of the following cases affirmed a defendant's right to have a competency evaluation before trial: Aptheker v. Secretary of State or Dusky v. United States?
5af5eb218fbf6c9d7d272b0bdb0c4c54
Aptheker v. Secretary of State Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case on the right to travel and passport restrictions as they relate to Fifth Amendment due process rights and First Amendment free speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association rights. It is the first case in which the US Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of personal restrictions on the right to travel abroad.
0e705c073df5ee0dc884554f63f64efd
Dusky v. United States Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed a defendant's right to have a competency evaluation before proceeding to trial. The Court outlined the basic standards for determining competency.
db0c4fb7504c2045e775f4f3b6619256
Rostker v. Goldberg Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981) , was a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the practice of requiring only men to register for the draft was constitutional. After extensive hearings, floor debate and committee sessions on the matter, the United States Congress enacted the law, as it had previously been, to apply to men only. Several attorneys, including Robert L. Goldberg, subsequently challenged the gender distinction as unconstitutional. (The named defendant is Bernard D. Rostker, Director of the Selective Service System.) In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that this gender distinction was not a violation of the equal protection component of the due process clause, and that the Act would stand as passed.
3f86a43739b71f544765a7ed20c77725
Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394 (2001) , was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned a federal prisoner who sought to challenge his current sentence by arguing it was enhanced based on an unconstitutional prior conviction. A divided Court held that such challenges could not be brought. The decision was based on a reading of the statute in question, not a Sixth Amendment constitutional analysis.
a75c3071a81000594d11d1cdd69d2d43
Reid v. Covert Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) , is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that American civilians outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States cannot be tried by U.S. military tribunal, but instead retain the protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution, in this case, trial by jury.
b5b0562307f59dea5bcd1fca217e2d59
Competency evaluation (language) In applied linguistics and educational psychology, competency evaluation is a means for teachers to determine the ability of their students in other ways besides the standardized test.
351b1b1d83c9f0d5318baa578a4638bd
Tennard v. Dretke Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court was asked whether evidence of the defendant's low IQ in a death penalty trial had been adequately presented to the jury for full consideration in the penalty phase of his trial. The Supreme Court held that not considering a defendant's low IQ would breach his Eighth Amendment rights and constitute a cruel and unusual punishment.
622f4a11188ac149ad50e00e9150e6fd
Duncan v. Louisiana Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), was a significant United States Supreme Court decision which incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and applied it to the states.
479125e002b5c565edc5d55615d2ce90
Waller v. Florida Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S. 387 (1970), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the Double Jeopardy Clause protects defendants from successive prosecutions by states and municipalities for offenses based on the same criminal conduct.
b5e07f8450a242df22aed3fdecb05128
Luis v. United States Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016) was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the pre-trial restraint of assets needed to retain a defendant's counsel of choice when those assets have not been used in conjunction with criminal activity.
848c125c3392d1f31e24aa5010892aa5
Elkins v. United States Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) , was a US Supreme Court decision that held the "silver platter doctrine", which allowed federal prosecutors to use evidence illegally gathered by state police, to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
8f7b9b08c337dcdb0de69e9158084bbe
Jackson v. Indiana Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972) , was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that determined a U.S. state violated due process by involuntarily committing a criminal defendant for an indefinite period of time solely on the basis of his permanent incompetency to stand trial on the charges filed against him.
6578db4e27594f463e549ffd50993e71
Ford v. Wainwright Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) , was a U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the common law rule that the insane cannot be executed; therefore the petitioner is entitled to a competency evaluation and to an evidentiary hearing in court on the question of their competency to be executed.
f268a0f05d6d08fa6489ba53317bcf7f
United States v. Lawrence United States v. Lawrence, 3 U.S. 42 (1795) , was a United States Supreme Court case determining that the Supreme Court cannot normally compel a federal trial judge to proceed in a case which he feels is lacking sufficient evidence to proceed. In the case, the court held:
e32086236f2eff5bda0daff487c92dfb
Clark v. Arizona Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006) , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the insanity defense used by the State of Arizona. The ruling affirmed the murder conviction of a man with paranoid schizophrenia, for the killing of a police officer. The man had argued that his inability to understand the nature of his acts at the time they were committed should be a sufficient basis for showing he lacked the requisite mental state required as an element of the charged crime. The Court upheld Arizona's restriction of admissible mental health evidence only to the issue of insanity. Arizona does not allow mental health evidence to show that the defendant did not possess the required mental intent level necessary to satisfy an element of the crime. The evidence is only admissible if used to show that the defendant was insane at the time of the crime's commission. In this case, the defendant knew right from wrong so he could not qualify under Arizona's insanity defense.
97d2608e0293fe4c3f0c6270c30aec1f
Jandreau vs. Nicholson "Jandreau vs. Nicholson" is a United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case that dealt with competency of lay testimony as it pertains to establishing a diagnosis of a condition.
6cbed9f8459facc62e044e9fb3cbfa46
Adjudicative competence Adjudicative competence, also referred to as competence to stand trial, is a legal construct describing the criminal defendant's ability to understand and participate in legal proceedings. This includes the defendant's current ability to participate in various pleas and waivers of rights. It is unrelated to any possibility of an insanity plea. It is also unrelated to the ability of the defendant to represent himself, or to any evaluation of mitigation factors. The definition of adjudicative competence was provided by the United States Supreme Court in Dusky v. United States.
a88c77113c3a869812bd58b2a159e772
Sorrells v. United States Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932), is a Supreme Court case in which the justices unanimously recognized the entrapment defense. However, while the majority opinion by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes located the key to entrapment in the defendant's predisposition or lack thereof to commit the crime, Owen Josephus Roberts' concurring opinion proposed instead that it be rooted in an analysis of the conduct of the law enforcement agents making the arrest. Although the Court has stuck with predisposition, the dispute has hung over entrapment jurisprudence ever since.
1f15603fee21cb1f17aa3eb8b700d469
United States v. Rodriquez United States v. Rodriquez, 553 U.S. 377 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case interpreting the Armed Career Criminal Act. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the 6–3 majority, ruled that although the elements of a crime may not be considered "serious," sentence enhancements related to a defendant's prior record will bear on how the determination is made.
3f4e9626093735f274a7d2ae301321b5
Dixon v. United States Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the level of proof required to establish the affirmative defense of duress in a federal criminal case.
7161ae0bcf8b29e56d07a19bbd3dc4e3
Musacchio v. United States Musacchio v. United States, 577 U.S. ___ (2016) was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified procedures for appellate review when the government does not object to an erroneous jury instruction that adds elements to a criminal offense as well as whether a defendant may raise a statute of limitations defense for the first time on appeal. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that when reviewing a claim that the government failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence to substantiate a criminal offense, an appellate court should assess the elements of the alleged crime, rather than the elements that were described in jury instructions. Justice Thomas explained that "[a] reviewing court’s limited determination on sufficiency review ... does not rest on how the jury was instructed." Additionally, with respect to the statute of limitations issue, Justice Thomas held that a statute of limitations defense cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
4906cc9a34edbab00a6007b58bcfd648
In re Oliver In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the right of due process in state court proceedings. The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that criminal prosecutions require the defendant "... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation...and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." In this case, a witness in a Michigan grand jury hearing was convicted and sentenced to jail without either notice or attorney assistance.