NCJ Number
135631
Journal
Vanderbilt Law Review Volume: 45 Issue: 1 Dated: (January 1992) Pages: 199-235
Date Published
1992
Length
37 pages
Annotation
This article analyzes the limitations that the due process clause places on States in the allocation of the burden of proof in competency hearings.
Abstract
The article first describes the histories of the competency requirement, the standard of competence to stand trial, and the procedures used in competency decisionmaking. It then examines in greater detail the development of the burden of proof in competency hearings and introduces the contemporary controversy over the allocation of the burden of proof. A review of People v. Medina, the most recent of the burden-of-proof court decisions, presents arguments for and against a constitutional prohibition against the allocation of the burden of proof to the defendant. The article assesses the arguments against a constitutional requirement that States bear the burden of proof and attempts to free competency jurisprudence from much of the confusing rhetoric that characterizes the case law. This is followed by a due-process analysis of the burden of proof and a discussion of the role of social values in the allocation of the risk of error between litigants in the criminal justice process. The article concludes that because of the value society places on competence, due process requires that the State bear the burden of proof in competency hearings. 246 footnotes