Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Indiana v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2026Here, based on the entire record before us, we cannot exclude the reasonable possibility that Hronis suffered from a “mental condition that falls in a gray area between Dusky’s minimal constitutional requirement that measures a defendant’s ability to stand trial and a somewhat higher standard that measures mental fitness for another legal purpose.” (Edwards, supra, 554 U.S. at p. 172 .) Hronis’s competency to stand trial was extensively litigated below with some evidence suggesting that Hronis’s certainty he would be acquitted possibly impacted his understanding of the nuances of a penalty pha 2016An individual may well be able to satisfy the mental competence standard to stand trial because he is “able to work with counsel at trial,[5] yet at the same time he may be unable to carry out the basic tasks needed to present his own defense without the help of counsel.” ( Edwards, supra, 554 U.S. at pp. 175-176.) The Court in Edwards, thus, recognized a “gray-area” between the “minimal constitutional requirement that measures a defendant’s ability to stand trial and a somewhat higher standard that measures mental fitness for another legal purpose.” (Id. at pp. 172, 174.; see People v. Johnso | 2 | 5 |
People v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2016An individual may well be able to satisfy the mental competence standard to stand trial because he is “able to work with counsel at trial,[5] yet at the same time he may be unable to carry out the basic tasks needed to present his own defense without the help of counsel.” ( Edwards, supra, 554 U.S. at pp. 175-176.) The Court in Edwards, thus, recognized a “gray-area” between the “minimal constitutional requirement that measures a defendant’s ability to stand trial and a somewhat higher standard that measures mental fitness for another legal purpose.” (Id. at pp. 172, 174.; see People v. Johnso | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2013That is to say, the Constitution permits States to insist upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to stand trial under Dusky but who still suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves.” ( Edwards, supra, 554 U.S. at pp. 177-178 [ 171 L.Ed.2d at p. 357 ].) *1053 Edwards distinguished Godinez in part because Godinez held a state could permit a “gray area” defendant to represent himself; Edwards did not directly hold that a state must deny a gray-area defendant self-representation. ( Edwards, supra, 554 U. 2013That is to say, the Constitution permits States to insist upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to stand trial under Dusky but who still suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves.” ( Edwards, supra, 554 U.S. at pp. 177-178 [ 171 L.Ed.2d at p. 357 ].) *1053 Edwards distinguished Godinez in part because Godinez held a state could permit a “gray area” defendant to represent himself; Edwards did not directly hold that a state must deny a gray-area defendant self-representation. ( Edwards, supra, 554 U. | 2 | 2010–2013 |
Dusky v. United States
green
1 sentence2026Mental competence means the defendant has “‘sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding’” and also has “‘a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against him.’” (Dusky v. United States (1960) 362 U.S. 402 .) However, some defendants suffer from “a mental condition that 15 falls in a gray area between [the] minimal constitutional requirement that measures a defendant’s ability to stand trial and a somewhat higher standard that measures mental fitness for” self-representation. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.