User:Pns4545/Competence to Waive Appeals

Article Draft

Competence to Waive Appeals

American defendants who are convicted of a crime have the right to appeal that conviction [citation needed]. They also have the legal right to waive their appeals, but they must be mentally competent to do so. Case law demonstrates widespread confusion over the competing legal and psychological standards of competence. Juvenile defendants must also be competent to waive appeals, but these cases are much less likely to examined on appeal. There are many notable cases of death row inmates who waive their legal right to appeal their conviction.

Legal Standard for Competence to Waive Appeals

The legal standard for competence to waive appeals was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966. The Supreme Court remanded the case of Rees v. Peyton back to the trial court for clarification on the defendant's "capacity to appreciate his position and make a rational choice with respect to continuing or abandoning further litigation or, on the other hand, whether he is suffering from a mental disease, disorder, or defect which may substantially affect his capacity in the premises." This ruling was an expansion of the Court's 1960 decision in Dusky v. United States. There, the Court held that, in order to be competent to stand trial, a defendant must (1) understand the charges they face, and (2) have the present ability to aid their attorney in their own defense. As a result of these two cases, a defendant will generally be presumed competent to waive their right to appeal a conviction or sentence, unless there is evidence that they suffer from a mental disease, disorder, or defect that substantially affects their capacity to either understand their appeal or aid their appellate counsel.

Impact of Psychological Evaluations of Competence to Waive Appeals

To aid in determining whether this legal standard is met in a given case, mental health experts are often always called to testify in cases where the defendant's competency is at issue. Psychologists and psychiatrists have wide discretion to use different assessment tools and subjective clinical judgment in forming their opinions of legal competency. As a result, a case can involve competing experts with different opinions of the same defendant's competency. Many courts have even rejected a mental health professional's opinion of incompetence to impose their own opinions that the defendant is competent: for example, because the defendant made rational statements of remorse. Other courts have rejected expert testimony that was too "confusing" in favor of a defendant's seemingly rational statements. In both of these examples, the courts failed to determine whether the defendant's statements were actually rational or the product of mental illness, and rejected the opinions of expert witnesses who testified that the defendant was not competent to waive appeals.

Juvenile Competence to Waive Appeals

Issues of competency on appeal are most commonly raised on sentences involving the death penalty [citation needed]. Because juveniles are not eligible for the death penalty in the United States, appellate courts have not established a standard for juvenile competency to waive appeals. Juveniles are, however, eligible for life sentences in the United States, provided there is the possibility of parole. The right to appeal a life sentence (with or without the possibility of parole) or a lengthy prison sentence is a recognized legal right [insert citation], and juveniles who waive this right must be competent to do so.

Notable Cases

Gary Gilmore was the first American to receive the death penalty after the United States Supreme Court declared it constitutional in 1976. After shooting two men on the night of July 19, 1976, Gilmore was tried and convicted of first degree murder on October 7, 1976. The jury unanimously recommended the death penalty later that same day. Gilmore chose not to appeal the sentence, but his mother Bessie attempted to intervene by seeking "next friend" status in federal court, which would have allowed her to pursue appeals on Gilmore's behalf. The Supreme Court voted five-to-four not to hear Bessie's petition. The court was not presented with evidence that Gilmore was incompetent to waive his appeals (which could have allowed Bessie to be appointed "next friend" on his behalf). Several stays of execution were obtained by the ACLU over Gilmore's objections. He attempted suicide twice while on death row awaiting execution. Gilmore was executed by firing squad on January 17, 1977

Joseph Corcoran was convicted of four counts of murder and sentenced to death in 1999. On appeal, there was debate over Corcoran's mental competency to waive his right to appeal the conviction, and three separate expert witnesses unanimously opined that he was not competent to waive his rights of appeal. Three separate courts rejected this expert testimony and accepted the waiver of appeals. As of December 2020, Corcoran is still on Indiana's Death Row, and his execution date has been postponed indefinitely while the state seeks lethal injection drugs.