DOCSLIB.ORG

The Rule Proof Variations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Rule Proof Variations The Rule Proof Variations By Amy Bitterman Step One : State the general rule. Students first Amy Bitterman is a Legal Research and Writing Step Two : Illustrate the general rule by citing “ Instructor at Rutgers University School of Law– specific examples of how courts have applied wrestle with Newark in New Jersey. it to particular facts. synthesizing case Synthesizing multiple cases into a series of general The two-part Rule Proof is most effective when principles is a key technique for writing effective the general rule is self-evident or is determined by law when learning briefs and memoranda. It is also one of the most common usage and is not defined in any detail by a to draft the Rule difficult tasks for first-year students to master. Faced statute or case law. In such instances, a middle step with explaining numerous decisions, the tendency explicating the factors or criteria that courts use to Proof section of of most students is to deal with precedent by reach a conclusion about a specific element is not focusing on the facts of specific cases without necessary. However, where a more complicated the IRAC paradigm analyzing how those decisions relate to one another. judicial interpretation of an element is involved, employed in This method is not only inefficient when you have which is usually the case, the ability to formulate strict page limits, it also leads to heavy reliance on general principles from a series of specific examples legal writing fact-to-fact comparisons when arguing why case is crucial. I have found that the following three- for small-scale law mandates a particular decision when applied part Rule Proof, which requires students to lay out to a client’s problem. Thus, faced with a negative an additional “criteria” step, is an effective way of organization. holding, students tend to focus exclusively on encouraging case synthesis: ” factual differences between their client’s scenario Step One: State the general rule. and precedent, instead of considering the more Step Two: Flesh out the legal standard by persuasive argument that the underlying principles discussing up front the factors/criteria that of the prior decisions, when applied to the client’s courts use to evaluate whether the general facts, mandate a ruling in the client’s favor. In short, rule is met; in other words, synthesize the case after laying out the particulars of cases, students fail law by culling common themes from multiple to take the next step in the inductive reasoning authorities to arrive at the underlying process of moving to general conclusions. principles that tie the cases together. Students first wrestle with synthesizing case law Step Three: Use specific examples from case when learning to draft the Rule Proof section of law to show how the courts have applied the the IRAC paradigm employed in legal writing for factors/criteria to particular facts. small-scale organization. 1 To encourage case law synthesis, I have found it helpful to introduce Rule To illustrate the differences between the two Rule Proofs using a two-part model and a three-part Proof “variations,” I’ve had students work with the model. The two-part model breaks down as New York statute for criminal possession of stolen follows: property in the first degree, which provides that the prosecution must show: 1. The defendant knew the property was 1 The four-part small-scale organization paradigm is broken stolen; down as follows: I = identification of the legal rule 2. The defendant possessed the stolen R = examination of how the rule is applied in relevant precedent property; A = application of the rule to your client’s facts 3. The defendant intended to benefit himself; C = conclusion See, e.g. , Helene S. Shapo, Marilyn R. Walter & Elizabeth Fajans, and Writing and Analysis in the Law (5th ed. 2008). 109 Perspectives: Teaching Legal Research and Writing | Vol. 18 | Nos. 2 and 3 | Winter/Spring 2010 4. The stolen property was worth more than $1 However, the case law provides a more complicated million. 2 definition of the second element than the common usage definition of “possession.” 3 Pursuant to case The students are asked to consider whether the law, a defendant possesses the stolen property if he prosecutor has a case under the following facts: exercises control over the premises where the object One of the key In 2000, A’s brother, B, stole a Bible from a church was kept or if he exercises control over the item itself, “ after being fired from his job there. B told A that as evidenced by handling the item or arranging for its prewriting tools for the Bible was a gift from his former employer; he dispersal. 4 Thus, in this instance, the three-part Rule first-year students moved into A’s house the same year he stole the Proof is appropriate. Bible and the book has been in her house ever since. Sample Rule Proof: The prosecutor must establish is the preparation B was very secretive about the book and told A not that the defendant possessed the stolen property to mention it to anyone. In 2008, B disappeared and of case charts (Rule Proof 1). The prosecutor can satisfy this A does not know his whereabouts. From 2000 until element by showing that the defendant exercised summarizing the 2008, A did not touch the Bible. In 2009, A took the dominion and control over either the stolen item Bible to an antiques dealer for an appraisal. The itself or the premises where the item was kept (Rule key information dealer offered her $3,000 for it. A then brought Proof 2). Case A (finding that the possession element the Bible to Sotheby’s for a second appraisal. The provided in was met where the defendant was the manager of the Sotheby’s appraiser recognized the Bible as a stolen store where the stolen goods were kept) (Rule Proof opinions. work that was worth more than $3,000,000. While 3); Case B (determining that the possession element ” A claims she did not think the book was worth was not met where the defendant had nothing to do much as it was “old and had no pictures,” the with the sale of the goods) (Rule Proof 3). Sotheby’s appraiser testified that A sought a second appraisal because she thought the book was Prewriting Process worth more than $3,000. The Sotheby’s appraiser An effective Rule Proof at the writing stage begins also noted the Bible had a torn label on the first with effective prewriting techniques. One of the page and testified that the label probably identified key prewriting tools for first-year students is the the owner. preparation of case charts summarizing the key Applying the statute to these facts, the fourth information provided in opinions. Typical case element of section 165.54 provides a clear example charts start with the names and facts of the case, an of when a two-part Rule Proof is sufficient, since approach that tends to lead to overreliance on case- the valuation requirement is self-evident and by-case analysis. 5 To push students toward case the case law does not provide much additional synthesis, I suggest that they work with a case chart explication. Either the property at issue is worth that forces them to think about the criteria that more than $1 million on its face or as determined courts use to determine when a general legal element by expert valuations or the fourth element is not is met. For example: satisfied. Sample Rule Proof: To establish possession of stolen property in the first degree, the prosecutor must show that the item at issue was worth more than $1 million (Rule Proof 1). In Case A, the court determined that the first element was satisfied when 3 By way of example, the American Heritage Dictionary defines the defendant had a stolen painting valued at $4 “possess” as “to exert influence or control over.” million (Rule Proof 2). 4 See, e.g. , People v. Fetter, 607 N.Y.S. 2d 381, 382 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994). 5 Deborah Shore, A Revised Concept Chart: Helping Students Move Away from a Case-by-Case Analysis , 11 Perspectives: 2 N.Y. Penal Law §165.54 (McKinney 2004). Teaching Legal Res. & Writing 123 (2003). 110 Perspectives: Teaching Legal Research and Writing | Vol. 18 | Nos. 2 and 3 | Winter/Spring 2010 Relevant Rule Rule-Related Facts Outcome of Rule Criteria Used to Case Name Determine Rule Possession of stolen Defendant was the Satisfied Whether defendant Case A property manager of a store had control over the where stolen goods premises where the were found. stolen property was stored “I have used a Same Defendant was a Not satisfied Same; whether Case B variation of the security guard in a defendant had control warehouse. He did over the stolen $10,000 Pyramid not handle the boxes property itself that contained the game to stolen goods and did not direct their sale. encourage students to develop the I have used a variation of the $10,000 Pyramid I Defendant could not clearly identify the game to encourage students to develop the person who sold him a car that was missing inductive inductive reasoning skills needed to complete the its radio property. reasoning skills “criteria” column of the chart. Using samples from I The car radio was missing. 6 assignments or in-class exercises, I ask one set of needed to These facts can by “synthesized” into three basic students to list a series of fact findings from case criteria: complete the law relating to a specific issue and have another group come up with an underlying principle that evidence of recent, exclusive possession ‘criteria’ column unites these findings.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Sources of International Law: an Introduction
    The Sources of International Law : An Introduction Samantha Besson, Jean d’Aspremont To cite this version: Samantha Besson, Jean d’Aspremont. The Sources of International Law : An Introduction. Besson, Samantha and d’Aspremont, Jean. The Oxford Handbook of the Sources of International Law, Oxford University Press, pp.1–39, 2017, 978-0-19-186026-3. hal-02516183 HAL Id: hal-02516183 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02516183 Submitted on 28 Apr 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. THE SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AN INTRODUCTION Samantha Besson and Jean D’Aspremont* I. Introduction The sources of international law constitute one of the most central patterns around which international legal discourses and legal claims are built. It is not contested that speaking like an international lawyer entails, first and foremost, the ability to deploy the categories put in place by the sources of international law. It is against the backdrop of the pivotal role of the sources of international law in international discourse that this introduction sets the stage for discussions con- ducted in this volume. It starts by shedding light on the centrality of the sources of international law in theory and practice (II: The Centrality of the Sources of International Law in Theory and Practice).
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Proving Wills by Judon Fambrough
    JULY 2012 Legal Issues PUBLICATION 2001 A Reprint from Tierra Grande Self-Proving Wills By Judon Fambrough Historically, Texas recognized three types of wills. The first was an oral will, sometimes called a nuncupative will or deathbed wish. Because of their limited application, oral wills made (signed) after Sept. 1, 2007, are no longer valid in Texas. The two other types are still Hvalid. A will written entirely in the deceased’s handwriting is known as a holographic will. A will not entirely in the deceased’s handwriting (typi- cally a typewritten will) is known as an attested will. Figure 1. Self-Proving Affidavit for Holographic Will THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF ____________________ (County where signed) Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared ____________________, known to me to be the testator (testatrix), whose name is subscribed to the foregoing will, who first being by me duly sworn, declared to me that the said foregoing instrument is his (her) last will and testament, that he (she) had willingly made and executed it as his (her) free act and deed, that he (she) was at the time of execution eighteen years of age or over (or being under such age, was or had been lawfully married, or was a member of the armed forces of the United States or of an auxiliary thereof or of the Maritime Service), that he (she) was of sound mind at the time Self-Proving Holographic Wills of execution and that he (she) has not revoked the olographic wills need no wit- will and testament.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence - Proof of Present Crime by Evidence of Past Criminal Acts James Hackett
    Marquette Law Review Volume 23 Article 9 Issue 1 December 1938 Evidence - Proof of Present Crime by Evidence of Past Criminal Acts James Hackett Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation James Hackett, Evidence - Proof of Present Crime by Evidence of Past Criminal Acts, 23 Marq. L. Rev. 41 (1938). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol23/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1938] RECENT DECISIONS cited with approval in Hill v. State, 145 Ala. 58, 40 So. 654 (1906). See also Mahoney v. State, 203 Ind. 421, 180 N.E. 580 (1932). In Turner v. State, 1 Ohio St. 422 (1853), the defendant demanded money of the prosecuting witness and, as the wife was handing it over to the prosecuting witness, the defendant snatched it and pocketed it. This was held to be robbery since it is enough that the property was in the presence and under immediate control, and that the offended party was laboring under fear, and that the intent to rob was present. The property need not actually be severed from the person. Cf. Ibeck v. State, 112 Tex. Cr. 288, 16 S.W. (2d) 232 (1929), where it was held that one may be robbed of property not taken from his person.
    [Show full text]
  • Logic, Sets, and Proofs David A
    Logic, Sets, and Proofs David A. Cox and Catherine C. McGeoch Amherst College 1 Logic Logical Statements. A logical statement is a mathematical statement that is either true or false. Here we denote logical statements with capital letters A; B. Logical statements be combined to form new logical statements as follows: Name Notation Conjunction A and B Disjunction A or B Negation not A :A Implication A implies B if A, then B A ) B Equivalence A if and only if B A , B Here are some examples of conjunction, disjunction and negation: x > 1 and x < 3: This is true when x is in the open interval (1; 3). x > 1 or x < 3: This is true for all real numbers x. :(x > 1): This is the same as x ≤ 1. Here are two logical statements that are true: x > 4 ) x > 2. x2 = 1 , (x = 1 or x = −1). Note that \x = 1 or x = −1" is usually written x = ±1. Converses, Contrapositives, and Tautologies. We begin with converses and contrapositives: • The converse of \A implies B" is \B implies A". • The contrapositive of \A implies B" is \:B implies :A" Thus the statement \x > 4 ) x > 2" has: • Converse: x > 2 ) x > 4. • Contrapositive: x ≤ 2 ) x ≤ 4. 1 Some logical statements are guaranteed to always be true. These are tautologies. Here are two tautologies that involve converses and contrapositives: • (A if and only if B) , ((A implies B) and (B implies A)). In other words, A and B are equivalent exactly when both A ) B and its converse are true.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Rules Governing Proof of Foreign
    International Arbitration and Litigation JUNE 28, 2018 U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies For more information, Rules Governing Proof of Foreign contact: Law James E. Berger +1 212 556 2202 [email protected] 1 INTRODUCTION Charlene C. Sun International dispute practitioners are well aware of the challenges that +1 212 556 2107 arise when the substance of foreign law is disputed in U.S. courts. Most [email protected] practitioners are aware that the question is governed by Rule 44.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the text of which affords a U.S. federal King & Spalding court significant discretion and latitude in determining the substance of foreign law. When foreign law is placed in issue, however, the government New York whose law is at issue may seek (or be called upon) to offer its own views. 1185 Avenue of the Americas The question of how much deference to afford a foreign government’s view New York, New York 10036- of its own law had become a contentious issue in U.S. litigation, particularly 4003 in cases—including cases against a foreign sovereign or one of its Tel: +1 212 556 2100 instrumentalities—where the foreign state has an interest in the outcome of that determination. On June 14, 2018, the United States Supreme Court decided Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.,2 a case arising from a class-action suit brought by U.S. based purchasers of vitamin C (the U.S. purchasers) against four Chinese companies that manufactured and exported the vitamin. The plaintiffs accused the sellers of fixing the price and quantity of the nutrient exported to the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Law, Economics, and the Burden(S) of Proof
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2012 Law, Economics, and the Burden(s) of Proof Eric L. Talley Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Law and Economics Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Eric L. Talley, Law, Economics, and the Burden(s) of Proof, RESEARCH HANDBOOK ON THE ECONOMICS OF TORTS, JENNIFER ARLEN, ED., EDWARD ELGAR, 2013; UC BERKELEY PUBLIC LAW RESEARCH PAPER NO. 2170469 (2012). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/1768 This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Law, Economics, and the Burden(s) of Proof Eric L. Talley1 Forthcoming in Research Handbook on the Economic Analysis of Tort Law (J. Arlen Ed, 2013) Version 2.4, November 5, 2012 (Original version: March, 2012) Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Definitional Dark Matter ........................................................................................................................... 6 3. Law and Economics Analysis of the Burden of Proof ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • My Last Will and Testament Means
    My Last Will And Testament Means Ribless or respiratory, Steward never consume any racism! Simmonds remains demiurgical: she brachiate her vibrant symbolise too vernally? Ingamar recrystallises variably if plausible Al uncase or travels. What you outlined by issuing letters and my will last means the means. Court oversees this process. If you need to disinherit a child you should do so by naming and disinheriting that child specifically. He did want your will and by taking the proper manner you seek to join the testament will and means that this document must also need for a cloud services. This last will and my last will means. As my last will means signing and testament means creditors is that the instrument to manage your death, then the validity of testament will my last and means that have different. Most problematic type and will my last and testament means, we created before the. What Happens If I Die Without A Last Will and Testament In Michigan? Be molded into the entry word comes near you and testament does not. By my last will means, my last will and testament means today to your death, settling your property? There are not survive. In my last decade or testament will my last and means that my last will to your beneficiaries will that of testament prepared for you chose to going to the forefront of. An executor is called a last will means that will my last and testament means that were not given certain elements of common disaster, no will and you can.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Review Rationalism and Revisionism in International Law
    BOOK REVIEW RATIONALISM AND REVISIONISM IN INTERNATIONAL LAW THE LIMITS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. By Jack L. Goldsmith and Eric A. Posner. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005. Pp. 262. $29.95. Reviewed by Oona A. Hathaway*and Ariel N. Lavinbuk** INTRODUCTION International law has moved from the periphery to the center of public debate in the course of only a few short years. The ever- quickening globalization of politics, culture, and economics has prompted new efforts to find global solutions to global problems. In- ternational law now touches an astonishing array of activities. It gov- erns everything from the goods and services that cross state borders and the greenhouse gases that industries and consumers produce, to the circumstances that justify intervention in humanitarian disasters and the treatment afforded suspected terrorists. Of increasingly urgent concern, then, is whether all of this law actually makes much of a difference. Legal scholars have traditionally argued that it does. They have, for the most part, portrayed international law as a powerful and much-needed external limit on states' pursuit of their own short-term interests. Over the last half decade, however, Professors Jack Gold- smith and Eric Posner have aspired to revolutionize policymaking and scholarship by arguing precisely the opposite - an argument now pre- sented fully in The Limits of InternationalLaw. In their view, interna- tional law does not check self-interest but instead "emerges from states acting rationally to maximize their interests, given their perceptions of the interests of other states and the distribution of state power" (p. 3). * Associate Professor of Law, Yale Law School; Carnegie Scholar 2004.
    [Show full text]
  • Choice of Law for Burdens of Proof
    NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Volume 46 Number 1 Article 6 2021 Choice of Law for Burdens of Proof Dale A. Nance Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Dale A. Nance, Choice of Law for Burdens of Proof, 46 N.C. J. INT'L L. 235 (2020). Available at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj/vol46/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Choice of Law for Burdens of Proof Dale A. Nance† ABSTRACT: The traditional view is that all aspects of the burden of proof are procedural, so a forum court properly employs its own law on such matters, even when comity dictates the application of another jurisdiction’s substantive law to the matter in dispute. However, this has never been an entirely accurate description of practice, and there has been discernible movement toward the opposite conclusion over the last century. The matter remains in flux, with divergent judicial opinions and unhelpful rationalizations. This Article explains the discord and provides a workable rule for resolving the choice-of-law problem. The key is to recognize that the two components of the burden of proof, the burden of persuasion and the burden of production, have quite different functions. Once these functions are identified, it becomes clear that the burden of production, in both its allocation and the severity of the burden that it imposes, should be governed by forum law.
    [Show full text]
  • Formation and Evidence of Customary International Law
    International Law Commission UFRGSMUN | UFRGS Model United Nations Journal ISSN: 2318-3195 | v1, 2013| p.182-201 Formation and Evidence of Customary International Law André da Rocha Ferreira Cristieli Carvalho Fernanda Graeff Machry Pedro Barreto Vianna Rigon 1. Historical background Since the establishment of the international community, two were the mainly sources of law: treaties between States and custom. Scholars oft en sustain that international law emerged in Europe, specifi cally aft er the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. It is possible to identify a development of relations between diff erent political actors already in the ancient times and, at that time, we can note the presence of the custom in this relations. In fact: “[t]o assume that international law has developed only during the last four or fi ve centuries and only in Europe, or that Christian civilization has enjoyed a monopoly in regard to prescription of rules is to govern inter-state conduct. As Majid Khadduri points out: “in each civilization the population tended to develop within itself a community of political entities—a family of nations—whose interrelationships were regulated by a single authority and a single system of law. Several families of nations existed and coexisted in areas such as the ancient Near East, Greece and Rome, China, Islam and Western Christendom, where at least one distinct civilization had developed in each of them. Within each civilization a body of principles and rules developed for regulating the conduct of states with one another in peace and war” (Anad in Malanczuk 1997, 9). At that age, both sources had the same hierarchy as a rule, being equally treated in the law practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Components of Proof in Legal Proceedings Hubert W
    THE YALE LAW JOURNAL VOLUME 51 FEBRUARY, 1942 NUtBER 4 COMPONENTS OF PROOF IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS HUBERT W. SMITH t CERTAIN problems in law stand up stoutly against attack but yet lure the audacious to storm ramparts which never can be fully captured. Anong these is the problem of proof, that inner citadel which lies behind tie. outposts of the law of evidence. Do these outer barricades protect or have they become doubtful sym- bols in the desert? To judge of this, or to gain access to the citadel of final conviction, whether under a plaintiff's flag or a defendant's standard, one must be aware of the approaches which lead inward from the alien world of doubt and disputation. It is the limited purpose of this paper to explore the several approaches which lead to that ultimate state of conviction which we call proof. The approaches to proof are not confined to well-labeled high roads of factual evidence. They include pathways among preco nceptions, and avenues through psychological, logical, legal, factual and scientific ma- terials. If it were possible by subtle means to dissect the final state of conviction produced in the mind of a trier of facts, one might hope to say in the particular case what pathway persuasion had actually travelled. The proponent of the issue may have deployed his forces along the several approaches, as indeed he should, so that in retrospect one may be hard put to say which attack broke the barrier of skepticism or breached the defenses of doubt. Let us look briefly at the terrain through which these approaches wind.
    [Show full text]
  • Oklahoma's New Standard of Proof in Competency Proceedings: Due Process, State Interests, and a Murderer Named Cooper--Cooper V
    Oklahoma Law Review Volume 51 Number 1 1-1-1998 Criminal Law: Oklahoma's New Standard of Proof in Competency Proceedings: Due Process, State Interests, and a Murderer Named Cooper--Cooper v. Oklahoma Seth Branham Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/olr Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Seth Branham, Criminal Law: Oklahoma's New Standard of Proof in Competency Proceedings: Due Process, State Interests, and a Murderer Named Cooper--Cooper v. Oklahoma, 51 OKLA. L. REV. 135 (1998), https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/olr/vol51/iss1/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Oklahoma Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Criminal Law: Oklahoma's New Standard of Proof in Competency Proceedings: Due Process, State Interests, and a Murderer Named Cooper - Cooper v. Oklahoma L Introduction On April 16, 1996, the United States Supreme Court decided Cooper v. Oklahoma' and declared unconstitutional Oklahoma's standard of proof in criminal competency cases.2 Competency refers to whether a defendant has the ability: (1) to understand the nature of the charges and proceedings brought against her, and (2) to effectively and rationally assist in her defense? Oklahoma and three other states required the accused to prove incompetency by "clear and convincing evidence." The Court rejected this approach and mandated that a defendant can only be required to prove incompetency by a "preponderance of the evidence."4 The right to be tried only while competent is deemed fundamental, but the competing state interest - to protect against false findings of competence caused by malingering - is also important.
    [Show full text]