Medina v. California
United States Supreme Court
505 U.S. 437 (1992)
- Written by Shelby Crawford, JD
Facts
Medina (plaintiff) stole a gun, robbed several places, and killed three people. The state of California (defendant) charged Medina with multiple offenses, including three counts of first-degree murder. Before trial began, Medina’s lawyer moved for a competency hearing. Under California law, a person cannot participate in criminal proceedings against him if he is mentally incompetent. The California statute defining mental incompetence states that the defendant is presumed competent and that the party claiming incompetence bears the burden of proving incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial court granted Medina’s motion for a competency hearing and the jury heard conflicting expert testimony regarding Medina’s mental state before finding him competent to stand trial. Medina was convicted of all three murder charges and sentenced to death. On appeal, Medina argued that placing the burden of proof on the defendant in a competency hearing violated due process. The state supreme court affirmed his conviction. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kennedy, J.)
Concurrence (O’Connor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
