From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
People v. Bolden
California Court of Appeal
99 Cal. App. 3d 375 (1979)
Facts
Samuel Bolden (defendant) was charged with robbery, assault with intent to murder, and assault with a deadly weapon. Two psychiatrists testified for the prosecution (plaintiff) that Bolden was delusional and not competent to stand trial. Bolden believed that his father and brother, whom he had assaulted, were aliens who were inhabiting his relatives’ bodies. Bolden’s counsel advised the court that his client wanted to testify and be found competent to stand trial but that counsel had a duty to protect not just his client’s desires but his client’s best interests. Counsel believed that the insanity defense was available to Bolden, but he could not obtain Bolden’s cooperation to pursue the defense. Counsel had Bolden testify to his own competence and then offered the testimony of a professional psychiatric witness that Bolden was not competent. The jury returned a verdict of not competent to stand trial. On appeal, Bolden argued that he was denied due process by the statute requiring his attorney to give his opinion of his client’s competence, and he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his counsel offered evidence of Bolden’s incompetence despite Bolden’s desire to be found competent.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 617,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 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.
