User:JMC Ginger Gal/Sample page

Basic info:
Pate v. Robinson is a hearing regarding competency to stand trial which is mandated under the due process clause of the Constitution of the United States.

Background
Robinson was convicted for the murder of Flossie May Ward, his common-law wife. He was given a life sentence after it was conceded that he had shot and killed Flossie, and his court-appointed counsel asserted that he was insane at the time of the killing. Furthermore, they raised the issue regarding his incompetence to stand trial. Robinson had a history of troubled behavior, having been detained as a psychopathic patient and committing violent acts, such as killing his infant son and attempting suicide– four separate defense witnesses testified that Robinson was insane. Additionally, the trial court did not allow rebuttal medical testimony regarding the respondent’s sanity. This was the result of a sufficient stipulation that a doctor would testify that the respondent, when examined a few months before his trial,  knew the nature of the charges and was cooperating with his counsel. The trial court rejecting contentions in relation to the respondent’s sanity was challenged as a deprivation of due process of law and the 14th amendment. Based on a writ of error to the Supreme court of Illinois it was asserted that the trial court’s rejection of these contentions denied Robinson due process of law. The court found that no hearing on the mental capacity to stand trial had been requested and Robinson’s conviction was affirmed.

US Supreme Court’s Decision
The US Supreme court ruled that constitutionally, Robinson was entitled to a hearing. The hearing was on the issue of his competency to even stand trial. The Supreme court then required the district court to order Robinson as discharged, following the granting of another opportunity to the State to put Robinson to trial on its charges within a reasonable time.