NCJ Number
15816
Journal
Duke Law Journal Volume: 1974 Issue: 1 Dated: (1974) Pages: 149-174
Date Published
1974
Length
26 pages
Annotation
EXAMINES SIELING V. EYMAN, A DECISION OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AND CONCLUDES THAT A PRACTICAL EFFECT MAY BE TO CREATE A CLASS OF SEMI-COMPETENT DEFENDANTS ABLE TO STAND TRIAL BUT NOT PLEAD GUILTY.
Abstract
IN SIELING V. EYMAN, IT WAS HELD THAT A COURT MAY NOT ACCEPT A PLEA OF GUILTY FROM A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT WHO HAS BEEN FOUND COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL UNLESS IT ALSO DETERMINES THAT HE IS COMPETENT TO MAKE THE WAIVER OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS INHERENT IN A GUILTY PLEA. IN REACHING ITS DECISION, THE COURT RELIED ON THE SUPREME COURT'S RENDERING IN WESTBROOK V. ARIZONA, WHICH RECOGNIZED A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A DEFENDANT'S COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL AND HIS COMPETENCE TO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL. THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT THE WESTBROOK DECISION WOULD LOGICALLY APPLY TO THE WAIVER OF ALL FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN THE COURSE OF A TRIAL. THE AUTHOR FEELS THAT IN FOSTERING A DUAL STANDARD OF COMPETENCE, THE COURT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE COMPETENCE STANDARDS APPLIED TO DECISIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS SHOULD ALSO APPLY TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE DEFENDANT'S COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL. THE AUTHOR ARGUES THAT THE COMPETENCE TO MAKE DECISIONS ON FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS SHOULD PROPERLY BE ONE OF THE STANDARDS FOR COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL.