Chapter 8 (1)

Chapter 8 (1) - Exculpatory evidence is evidence (p. 173)...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–10. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Exculpatory evidence is evidence (p. 173) A. that tends to show the defendant to be not guilty as charged. B. that tends to show the defendant to be guilty as charged. C. that the defense must hand over to the prosecution before the trial begins. D. none of the above 1) Mental health experts may have expertise in a variety of areas relevant to litigation. 2) The law permits, and even encourages, the use of expert testimony on psychological topics. 3) Expert testimony by forensic psychologists thrives because it can be very lucrative. Competence to Stand Trial refers to a defendants capacity to function meaningfully and knowingly in a legal proceeding. Defendants may be determined by a judge to be incompetent if they are seriously deficient in one or more abilities: understanding the legal proceedings, communicating with their attorneys, appreciating their role in the proceedings, and making legally relevant decisions. The accepted national standard for competence to stand trial is a sufficient present ability to consult with [ones] attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, and . . . a rational, as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against [one] ( Dusky v. United States, 1960). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the standard for competence to stand trial will be used in federal courts for assessing other competence questions that arise in the criminal justice process ( Godinez v. Moran , 1993). In evaluating adjudicative competence, the mental health professional focuses on two components (foundational and decisional competence): 1) the foundational question of whether the defendant has the capacity to assist counsel. This component has three requirements:  a) understand the basic elements of the adversary system,  b) relate relevant information to ones attorney, and  c) understand ones situation as a criminal defendant. In evaluating adjudicative competence, the mental health professional focuses on two components: 2) The second component is decisional competence which consists of four abilities:  a) understanding the information relevant to decisions the defendant must make,  b) thinking rationally about the alternatives involved in these decisions,  c) appreciating the specific legal questions one must resolve as a defendant, and  d) making and expressing a choice about ones legal alternatives. If an evaluator believes a defendant has the capacities to be competent, the evaluator will...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/31/2011 for the course SOP 4842 taught by Professor Reardon during the Spring '08 term at FIU.

Page1 / 69

Chapter 8 (1) - Exculpatory evidence is evidence (p. 173)...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 10. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online