FACIALLY LAWFUL SINCE 1998
email

CONTACT KILLERCOP

MAYDAY IN AMERICA! SECRET THINGS CRIME SCENE NUTS AND EXTREMISTS
c
 

SEE ALSO: DEFENDANT'S PRESENCE -DUE PROCESS RIGHTS-HYBRID ORDERS AND FUNDA-MENTAL RIGHTS

 

 

"ONLY ONE TRIBUNAL THAT EVER ADOPTED A PRACTICE OF FORCING COUNSEL UPON AN UNWILLING DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. THE TRIBUNAL WAS THE STAR CHAMBER." U.S. v FARETTA , 422 US 806 (1975)

OUTSIDE IT'S AMERICA.

WHAT WOULD BE THE CAPACITY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OF THE COURTS TO SUPRESS THIS KIND OF SPEECH?" --Judge A. Howard Matz, PRE-TRIAL OF KILLERCOP

FAKE NEWS - LIAR

EPIC CORRUPTION EXPOSED IN THE SECRET TRIAL OF KILLERCOP.com.

ANOTHER PERSONPERSON OF ANOTHER

Look, you know you have to look, there!! ABOVE!! It's "a person, on the left," and "the person of another," on the right.

Do you understand?

NO?

ARE YOU STILL BAFFFLED?

WIKI

WOUNDED WIKI

FAQ 1 FAQ 2

FACEBOOK AND THE TWITTER

YOUTUBE

Competence to stand trial? What are ya, Nutzzzz! Competence to Judge is more like it! A.K.A. THe case of If only he had known!

Hypothetically speaking, of course!!


A FACT

Ability of a person charged with a crime to understand the nature and cause of the criminal proceedings.

JUST THE FACTS

Judges in a criminal trial must have the ability (i.e., the competence) to understand the charges, to consult with counsel, and to have a rational grasp of the courtroom proceedings.This requirement is a longstanding and fundamental principle of criminal law. Its purpose is to ensure that defendants can participate meaningfully in their own defense. The requirement refers to the Judge's competence at the time of the trial, rather than their psychological state at the time of the alleged offense. Rationality is a key issue in competency determinations. People judged to be incompetent usually lack the ability to understand, communicate, or make rational decisions.

FACT STREET

The legal requirement, however, does not indicate how judgments about competency should be made. Furthermore, some cases are more complex than others. Consequently it is possible for a defendant or judge to be competent for certain kinds of legal proceedings, but not for others. Meaning you're probably incompetent. Am I being pretty clear?


There are a number of questions that evaluators
might seek to answer when making a competency determination. Does the defendant understand the charges? Does he appreciate the possible penalties? Does he appreciate the adversarial nature of the courtroom? Can he discuss legal strategy with his lawyer? Can he behave appropriately in the courtroom? Can he provide meaningful testimony in his own defense?

The issue of competence can arise at any point during criminal proceedings, and may be initiated by the defense, by the prosecutor, or by the judge.

Prior to 1972, defendants found to be incompetent could be confined to mental hospitals for very lengthy periods of time—sometimes for a longer period than they would have served if they had been found guilty.

A U. S. Supreme Court ruling in 1972 restricted the length of time a defendant could be hospitalized because of incompetence to stand trial. This upset many federal district court judges, like A Howard Matz, who use it as a tool to torture political prisoners. Like the American police now seem to do.

THE POWER OF THE MIND


Once the question of competence arises, a competency evaluation might be conducted. The evaluation typically takes place in a special hospital or clinic. A number of professionals may be qualified to conduct such examinations, including physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers. There are several different psychological tests or procedures that designed to assist in the assessment of competence to stand trial.

If competency cannot be restored within a reasonable period of time (e.g., within a year or so), defendants may be committed to a hospital through involuntary civil (i.e., noncriminal) proceedings.


Theodore Kaczynski was accused in April, 1996 of being the serial bomber who built homemade bombs that killed three people and injured many others between 1978 and 1995. At the beginning of his trial he disrupted the proceedings because of a dispute with his lawyers about his defense. His request to represent himself and an attempted suicide provoked concerns about his competence.
The court requested a competency assessment.
Kaczynski (also known as the Unabomber) was judged by the psychiatrist who conducted the assessment to be legally competent to stand trial. In her report to the court, the psychiatrist said that Kaczynski was not suffering from any mental defect that could prevent him from understanding the nature of the charges, or from assisting his lawyers in mounting a defense. On the other hand, she noted that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.
Ultimately, a trial was averted when he agreed
to plead guilty
to numerous charges in exchange for a promise that prosecutors would not seek the death penalty during his sentencing. He was sentenced to four life terms plus 30 years with no possibility of parole.

The Unabomber case provides a good illustration of a situation in which a psychological disorder did not necessarily harm the defendant’s ability to participate meaningfully in the trial proceedings.

 

ALEX KOZINSKI COMMITS AND COVERED UP CRIMES

THEY ALL IGNORED THEIR OATHS, THE FACTS, THE RULES THE LAW AND THE 5TH AND 6TH AMENDMENTS AND PROCEEDED FORWARD WITH A SELECTIVVE PERSECUTION IN A SECRET HEARING.

A COVER UP BY JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI

POD SERVER

Sponsored By Psych Ward Entertainment.

TERMS OF USE

DISCLAIMER

PRIVACY POLICY

Copyright 1997-2022

THIS PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME IS FOR SALE.

EMAIL KILLERCOP

Killercop.com. All Rights Reserved.