Legal Opinion
Medina v. California
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided June 22, 1992No. 90-8370PublishedCited by 1,068 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Kennedy
It is well established that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the criminal prosecution of a defendant who is not competent to stand trial. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U. S. 162 (1975); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S. 375 (1966). The issue in this case is whether the Due Process Clause permits a State to require a defendant who alleges incompetence to stand trial to bear the burden of proving so by a preponderance of the evidence.
In 1984, petitioner Teofilo Medina, dr., stole a gun from a pawnshop in Santa Ana, California. In the weeks that followed, he held up two gas…
2Cases cited47 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Estelle v. McGuireSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Santosky v. KramerSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- United States v. RaddatzSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1,068 opinions
- Herrera v. CollinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Smith v. RobbinsSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Ladd v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1999
- Godinez v. MoranSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
1,063 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.