Supreme court puts limits on mentally ill defendants
National News
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that criminal defendants with a history of mental illness do not always have the right to represent themselves, even if they have been judged competent to stand trial.
The justices, by a 7-2 vote, said states can give trial judges discretion to prevent someone from acting as his own lawyer if they are concerned that the trial could turn into a farce.
The decision comes in the case of an Indiana man who was convicted of attempted murder and other charges in 2005 for a shooting six years earlier at an Indianapolis department store.
Ahmad Edwards was initially found to be schizophrenic and suffering from delusions and spent most of the five years after the shooting in state psychiatric facilities. But by 2005, he was judged competent to stand trial.
Edwards asked to represent himself. A judge denied the request because he was concerned that Edwards' trial would not be fair. Edwards, represented by a lawyer, was convicted anyway and sentenced to 30 years in prison.
He appealed, and Indiana courts agreed that his right to represent himself had been violated, citing a U.S. high court decision from 1993. The courts overturned his conviction and ordered a new trial.
Thursday's ruling probably will lead to the reinstatement of the conviction.
"The Constitution permits states to insist upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to stand trial ... but who still suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the majority opinion.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. "In my view, the Constitution does not permit a state to substitute its own perception of fairness for the defendant's right to make his own case before the jury," Scalia said.
Related listings
-
City Evicts Boy Scouts For Anti-Gay Bias
National News 06/16/2008The City of Philadelphia wants to evict the Boy Scouts of America from the rent-free property that has been its headquarters since 1928, for violating the city's anti-discrimination policy. The city says the Scouts' Cradle of Liberty openly discrimin...
-
Supreme Court Re: US Citizens detained abroad by US
National News 06/13/2008The US Supreme Court ruled Thursday in the consolidated cases of Munaf v. Geren and Geren v. Omar that federal courts have jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions filed by American citizens detained abroad by US military personnel, even if the mili...
-
Indian trust mismanagement case goes to trial
National News 06/11/2008The US District Court for the District of Columbia began hearings Monday in Cobell v. Kempthorne, a class-action suit brought in 1996 alleging US government mismanagement of trust funds for a group of some 500,000 Native Americans and their heirs. Ju...
Forte Law Group is a trusted resource to protect your child’s needs.
Based on the culmination of ongoing state, municipal and board of education budget cuts, coupled with school districts having to do more with less resources, the current climate within schools often dictates that you may require a special education attorney to achieve the best results when advocating for your child’s right to a free appropriate public education. Coupled with increasing class sizes, your child may slip through the cracks within the school system itself and not be receiving an appropriate education with measurable goals and objectives.
A Connecticut Special Education Attorney Knows the Law
Often is the situation that there already exists a high level of frustration and contention between the family and school when special education and related services are not being appropriately delivered. Many times, the relationship between family and school results in an adversarial environment that is not conducive towards a team approach for the benefit of your child’s needs.