Properties (53)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instanceOf |
legal case
|
| gptkbp:caseOutcome |
Set a precedent for future competency evaluations.
|
| gptkbp:caseTypes |
Criminal law case
06-7360 |
| gptkbp:citedBy |
554 U.S. 164
|
| gptkbp:consequences |
Influenced future cases on self-representation.
|
| gptkbp:court |
Affirmed the lower court's ruling.
Guided lower courts in similar cases. Influenced state laws on competency. Ruling clarified self-representation rights. Ruling emphasized the need for competency. |
| gptkbp:decidedBy |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
January 20, 2008 |
| gptkbp:historical_analysis |
Analyzed by legal scholars.
Discussed in law reviews. Considered a landmark case. Examined in mental health law contexts. Critiqued_for_its_implications_on_defendants. |
| gptkbp:homeGround |
Defendant had a history of mental illness.
Defendant was charged with robbery. Defendant wished to represent himself. State appealed the trial court's decision. Trial court found him incompetent. |
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Indiana v. Edwards
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Clarified standards for self-representation in court.
|
| gptkbp:judges |
gptkb:Justice_Antonin_Scalia
Dissent argued for broader self-representation rights. Defendant's self-representation rights upheld. Majority opinion favored the state. Supreme_Court_review |
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
Examined the intersection of mental health and legal rights.
|
| gptkbp:legalStatus |
gptkb:Sixth_Amendment_rights
Due Process Clause Competency to stand trial Competency standard for self-representation. Debate on self-representation rights. Established guidelines for future cases. Ongoing discussions about mental health in law. Addressed the balance between self-representation and mental competency. |
| gptkbp:outcome |
Defendant can be required to represent themselves if competent.
|
| gptkbp:politicalAffiliation |
gptkb:George_Edwards
State of Indiana |
| gptkbp:politicalParty |
gptkb:Justice_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
gptkb:Faretta_v._California
|
| gptkbp:publicAccess |
Concerns about defendants' rights.
Criticism of competency evaluations. Debate among mental health advocates. Mixed reactions from legal community. Support for self-representation rights. |
| gptkbp:relatedPatent |
gptkb:Dusky_v._United_States
gptkb:Godinez_v._Moran |
| gptkbp:state |
gptkb:Indiana
|
| gptkbp:yearEstablished |
2008
|