Provincial Court Judge's Duty to Appoint Counsel: Regina v. White
نویسندگان
چکیده
منابع مشابه
A pilot survey of trial court judges' opinions on pro se competence after Indiana v. Edwards.
In Indiana v. Edwards, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a higher standard may be required for pro se competence (PSC) than for competence to stand trial (CST). However, the Court refrained from elaborating a specific standard. The trial judge is in the best position to make more fine-tuned mental capacity decisions. This pilot study surveyed trial judges' opinions about PSC to help forensic eva...
متن کاملDirecting Retribution: On the Political Control of Lower Court Judges
The sentencing decisions of trial judges are constrained by statutory limits imposed by legislatures. At the same time, judges in many states face periodic review, often by the electorate. We develop a model in which the effects of these features of a judge’s political landscape on judicial behavior interact. The model yields several intriguing results: First, if legislators care about the prop...
متن کاملTo Elect or to Appoint ?
In this appendix we consider a procedure to assess quantitatively whether the expressive or strategic voting model is more appropriate for the state supreme court voting data used in this paper. As we remarked in the main text, for a given set of cases, the first-stage likelihood function for the votes is identical for both the expressive and strategic voting models, and in this sense the two m...
متن کاملRight to Counsel in Juvenile Court 50 Years After In re Gault.
The 20th century U.S. Supreme Court advanced the Constitutional rights of adult criminal defendants. Although far reaching in their impact, these constitutional protections were not afforded to juveniles. For example, the Supreme Court held in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) that indigent adult defendants in felony cases have a right to counsel as a matter of due process, but did not extend this ri...
متن کاملIn re Gault at 40 : The Right to Counsel in Juvenile Court - A Promise Unfulfilled
On May 15, 1967, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of In re Gerald Gault, [FN1] a case seemingly destined to change forever and for better the way children accused of crimes are treated in state juvenile courts. In its opinion, the Court held that children were “persons” under the United States Constitution, and as such, had to be treated fairly when the state sought to deprive t...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Alberta Law Review
سال: 1969
ISSN: 1925-8356,0002-4821
DOI: 10.29173/alr2292