Individual Research Task. Individual Research: Overview Medina vs. California, 505 U.S. 437 (1992). Retrieved from Findlaw at:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=U.S.&vol=505&invol=437

Competency to stand trial (CST)

Medina was convicted of first-degree murder and in the state of California a person must establish his mental incompetency by the standard of a 'preponderance of evidence.' The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this standard of a burden of proof, denying it violated the petitioner Medina's right to due process.

Dean v. United States (08-5274). (2009). Retrieved from Cornell University Law School at:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-5274.ZO.html

Criminal responsibility (mens rea)

Dean was convicted under a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence requirement for firing a handgun during a robbery; Dean argued that because he did not intend to fire the gun the mandatory minimum did not apply, however the U.S. Supreme Court held that even if the gun went off accidentally, Dean was still liable to the mandatory minimum.

Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman (No. 79-1404) (1980) Retrieved from Cornell

University Law School at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/451/1

Right to treatment

"The Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (Act) established a federal-state grant program whereby the Federal Government provides financial assistance to participating States to aid them in creating programs...

The Act is voluntary, and the States are given the choice of complying with the conditions set forth in the Act or forgoing the benefits of federal funding" (Pennhurst State School, 1980). The case was brought forth against a substandard state facility for the developmentally disabled. However, the U.S. Supreme Court found "Section 6010 does not create in favor of the mentally retarded any substantive rights to 'appropriate treatment' in the 'least restrictive" environment' as denoted in the Act (Pennhurst State School, 1980).
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, (88-1503), 497 U.S. 261 (1990) Retrieved

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/88-1503.ZS.html

Right to refuse treatment

Nancy Cruzan's parents requested that their daughter's life support and feeding tube be removed, pursuant to the wishes she expressed to a housemate before getting into a car accident which left her in a 'persistent vegetative state.' This case tested the right to refuse life-saving treatment in the absence of a living will. The Court decided that the state of Missouri's requirement that clear and convincing evidence be presented regarding an incompetent person's wishes was not a violation of Cruzan's due process.

Arizona v. Fulminante (No. 89-839) (1991) Retrieved from Cornell University Law School

at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/499/279

Coercion

While being jailed for an unrelated crime, petitioner Fulminante confessed that he had murdered his…