Pro se competence in the aftermath of Indiana v. Edwards.

Enhancing the Value of Expert Assistance in Pro Se Competence Determinations.

Forensic mental health practitioners are comfortable assessing criminal defendants' competence to stand trial. They have a long history of making such assessments and a large body of research and scholarship to guide them. In recent years, however, the courts have drawn a distinction between general trial competence (i.e., competence while represented by counsel) and competence to proceed pro s...

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...

Survey of forensic mental health experts on pro se competence after Indiana v. Edwards.

In Indiana v. Edwards (2008) 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), but provided little guidance for the trial court judge. This survey of forensic mental health experts studied potential PSC criteria. Sixty-eight (22.7%) forensic evaluators replied. Three McGarry criteria were reported as requirin...

The Coliseum disaster: aftermath at Methodist Hospital.

Illiberal Construction of pro Se Pleadings

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................586 I. PRO SE LITIGATION AND LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION .......................589 A. The Right to Proceed Pro Se ............................................... 590 B. The Federal Pro Se Docket .................................................. 591 1. Evidence of a Burgeoning Caseload ....................