Summary

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Pate v. Robinson — Opinion of the Court

Before turning to the facts, it is pertinent to consider the quality of the incompetence they are supposed to indicate. In federal courts-and I assume no more is asked of state courts-the test of incompetence that warrants postponing the trial is reasonably well settled. In language this Court adopted on the one occasion it faced the issue, 'the 'test must be whether * * * (the defendant) has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding-and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Pate v. Robinson — Opinion of the Court

The State insists that Robinson deliberately waived the defense of his competence to stand trial by failing to demand a sanity hearing as provided by Illinois law. But it is contradictory to argue that a defendant may be incompetent, and yet knowingly or intelligently 'waive' his right to have the court determine his capacity to stand trial. See Taylor v. United States, 282 F.2d 16, 23 (C.A.8th Cir. 1960) . In any event, the record shows that counsel throughout the proceedings insisted that Robinson's present sanity was very much in issue.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature