Citation network
Godinez Vs. Moran
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 24, 1993
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 389 (1993) October Term, 1992 Syllabus Godinez, Warden V. MoranSearch
-
Dusky v. UnitedSearch
-
himself, because the ability to do so has no bearing upon his competence to choose self-representation, Faretta v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 806 , 836. When, in Westbrook v. ArizonaSearch
-
requirement of Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
for the murder of his ex-wife and remanded for imposition of a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Moran v. StateSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
App. to Pet. for Cert. D-8. The Supreme Court of Nevada dismissed respondent's appeal, Moran v. WardenSearch
-
and state courts of last re- 5 While the Ninth Circuit and the District of Columbia Circuit, see United States v. MasthersSearch
-
the competency standard for pleading guilty is identical to the competency standard for standing trial. See Allard v. HelgemoeSearch
-
United States v. ValentinoSearch
-
McGough v. HewittSearch
-
Shaw v. MartinSearch
-
Malinauskas v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. HarlanSearch
-
Heral v. FranzenSearch
-
White Hawk v. SolemSearch
-
Wolf v. UnitedSearch
-
than the competency standard for standing trial, see United States ex rel. Konigsberg v. VincentSearch
-
Blackmon v. ArmontroutSearch
-
United States v. CampbellSearch
-
standard to waivers of counsel, and only the Seventh Circuit, see United States v. ClarkSearch
-
United States v. McGinnisSearch
-
the conflict. 506 U. S. 1033 (1992). II A criminal defendant may not be tried unless he is competent, Pate v. RobinsonSearch
-
accord, Brady v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 397 U. S. 742 , 758 (1970). In Dusky v. UnitedSearch
-
Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). Accord, Drope v. MissouriSearch
-
guilty or to waive the right to the assistance of counsel. Relying in large part upon our decision in Westbrook v. ArizonaSearch
-
pleading guilty or waiving the right to counsel is higher than the competency standard for standing trial. See Sieling v. EymanSearch
-
F.2d 211 , 214-215 (1973) (first Ninth Circuit 6 Compare, e. g., State v. SimsSearch
-
and Pickens v. StateSearch
-
Wis. 2d 549, 567-568, 292 N. W. 2d 601, 610-611 (1980) (heightened standard for waiver of counsel), with People v. HeralSearch
-
and People v. ReasonSearch
-
the privilege against self-incrimination, the right to a jury trial, and the right to confront one's accusers. Boykin v. AlabamaSearch
-
for purposes of Teague v. LaneSearch
-
petitioner did not raise a Teague defense in the lower courts or in his petition for certiorari. See Parke v. RaleySearch
-
in describing the competence necessary to withdraw a certiorari petition, Rees v. PeytonSearch
-
his right to counsel is the competence to waive the right, not the competence to represent himself.lO In Faretta v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 806 (1975), we 10 It is for this reason that the dissent's reliance on Massey v. MooreSearch
-
answering a question that is quite different from the question presented in this case. Prior to our decision in Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
a trial court must satisfy itself that the waiver of his constitutional rights is knowing and voluntary. Parke v. RaleySearch
-
the prohibition against the trial of incompetent defendants dates back at least to the time of Blackstone, see Medina v. CaliforniaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial