United States v. Ramirez
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
871 F.2d 582 (1989)
- Written by Kyli Cotten, JD
Facts
Hector Ramirez (defendant) was charged with possession and distribution of cocaine. At trial, the government (plaintiff) sought to use a coconspirator, Karla Espinal, as its key witness who would implicate Ramirez in the drug-distribution ring. Espinal had previously admitted to heavy cocaine use during the time of the offense and was also consistently taking prescribed Xanax at the time of trial. Based on these facts, Ramirez filed a motion to compel Espinal to submit to a psychiatric examination. Ramirez argued that Espinal’s past use of cocaine and present use of Xanax may render her an incompetent witness. The trial court denied Ramirez’s motion. Ramirez was subsequently convicted of the charges and appealed, claiming that Espinal should have been compelled to undergo a psychiatric examination to determine competency.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Guy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.