Supreme Court decides Pro Se compentency limits

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday held that defendants found mentally competent enough to stand trial are not necessarily likewise competent enough to represent themselves at that trial. (Case )

Coming out of the state of Indiana, the trial court had relied on a lengthy amassing of psychiatric reports, noting that the defendant had been diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia, and concluding that, while he was competent to stand trial, he was not competent to represent himself.

He appealed that two years ago, the court there agreeing that the trial court’s refusal of self-representation deprived him of his constitutional right of self-representation under the Sixth Amendment and case precedent (Farretta v. California, 1975 ), and remanded the case.

Last year the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed that on the grounds that Faretta and Godinez v. Moran (1993 ) both required the defendant be allowed to defend himself.

The Supreme Court had “several considerations” in concluding that the Constitution in fact allows a state to limit a defendant’s right to self-representation:

Federal precedent, while not answering the question at hand, points in that direction. Dusky v. U.S. (1960 ) and Drope v. Missouri (1975) set forth the Constitution’s “mental competence” standard forbidding the trial of an individual lacking a rational & factual understanding of the proceedings and sufficient ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, but did not consider the relation of that “mental competence” standard with the right of self-representation. Faretta (supra), rested its self-representation conclusion in part on pre-existing state cases that are consistent with , and at least two of which expressly adopt, a competency limitation on the self-representation right.

The nature of mental illness cautions against a single competency standard to decide both whether a defendant who is represented can proceed to trial, and whether a defendant who goes to trial must be permitted to represent himself.

A self-representation right at trial will not “affirm the dignity” of a defendant who lacks the mental capacity to conduct his own defense without the assistance of counsel , and may undercut the most basic of the Constitution’s criminal law objectives, that of providing a fair trial.

Ohio DUI legislation

The Ohio General Assembly last Tuesday passed sweeping legislation cracking down on DUIs in this state. (Text)(Analysis)

The new law, once signed by Gov. Strickland, includes requiring repeat offenders to install $90-a-month ignition “interlocks” on their cars – the seventh state to have that kind of provision – and creates a public, online “habitual OVI offender” database for persons having five or more drunk-driving charges.

Fines are increased from $325 to $375 for the first offense now, $525 for a second offense within six years of the first, and $850 for a third within that six year period. Fines for more than three offenses increases from $1,300 to $1,350.

Of the 250, 000 Ohio DUIs with at least one arrest, some 44 % have multiple convictions, according to an Enquirer article last week. An accompanying graphic by the Ohio Department of Public Safety indicated that roughly 1/3rd of those charged with drunken driving in Hamilton, Lucas, Wood and Franklin Counties were repeat offenders. That estimate was around 50% for 11 other counties, with Adams County having the highest percentage of prior convictions (57 %); neighboring Brown and Highland Counties were second & third. (See Map)

Walgreen's whistleblower lawsuit settlement

Walgreen’s, the nation’s largest chain drugstore, yesterday agreed to pay $35 million in settlement to a federal whistleblower lawsuit which alleged it had substituted more expensive versions of three prescription drugs from July 2001 thru 2005 to Medicaid programs from 42 states and Puerto Rico. (Article)

Pharmacist Bernard Lisitza – who will get about $5 million -- also successfully sued CVS Caremark Corporation back in March, and Omnicare, Inc. in November 2006.

An Associated Press report this morning said the only states not part of the action were Alaska, California, Delaware, Hawaii, North Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia. The District of Columbia was not party to the action either.

Press releases from the attorney general offices of Ohio and Indiana indicated that the settlement also resolved allegations that Walgreen’s had made wholesale switches without physician involvement and therefore violated numerous state regulations governing pharmaceutical dispensing.

The three cases together recovered $120 million to the various state Medicaid programs. Ohio received $4.7 million from the Omnicare case, $1.7 million from the CVS case last March, and $161,000 from today’s settlement. Indiana’s Medicaid program is receiving $28, 479 from Walgreen’s, and had picked up $1.7 million from the two earlier cases.