Indy prosecutor seeks death penalty in shooting death of IMPD Officer Perry Renn

[phylodog]

Your frustration is valid. However, let's wargame this out.

I get, it just sucks. Reeks of victory for the murdering scumbag and his pathetic excuse for a family. May be a small and/or temporary victory but a victory nonetheless.

Since he is (apparently) not incompetent, does he get to draw SSDI and have it deposited into his account and DMHA?

 

[Fargo]

I get, it just sucks. Reeks of victory for the murdering scumbag and his pathetic excuse for a family. May be a small and/or temporary victory but a victory nonetheless.

Since he is (apparently) not incompetent, does he get to draw SSDI and have it deposited into his account and DMHA?

Incompetent to stand trial means he suffers from a mental infirmity to the point that he is unable to effectively assist in his own defense at trial. I don't believe it triggers anything in regard to SSDI. As he is being held in custody awaiting trial, I don't believe he would be eligible for such payments but I am not certain of that. I know that conviction and incarceration will often trigger ineligibility for SSDI, but I don't know about pretrial detention.

 

[IndyDave1776]

When I joined INGO, there was a plethora of threads about jack bootery and railroaded prosecutions.

My, how things change.

This case? I wager none of us were at the hearings or have read the motions and evaluations. The evidence of guilt for the crime has nothing to do with competence to stand trial. Until I hear actual evidence that this decision did not comply with the standards set for this determination (incompetence to stand trial) I will assume it was carried out in good faith and there was a sound basis for the decision....which is one that is not final.

This is true. Some of us have a major issue with this. Now, we have one of those outstanding officers that many of us consider a rarity murdered in cold blood, and yes, we want the worthless MFSB to get his neck stretched.

 

[phylodog]

Incompetent to stand trial means he suffers from a mental infirmity to the point that he is unable to effectively assist in his own defense at trial. I don't believe it triggers anything in regard to SSDI. As he is being held in custody awaiting trial, I don't believe he would be eligible for such payments but I am not certain of that. I know that conviction and incarceration will often trigger ineligibility for SSDI, but I don't know about pretrial detention.

I should have included purple for the SSDI though I am assuming he would be disqualified from receiving it. I wouldn't be surprised to find out he isn't however.

I'm a bit pessimistic and I would counter that being declared incompetent means that someone has made that subjective determination. That declaration does not make it so any more than a verdict of not guilty means someone is innocent.

 

[Fargo]

I should have included purple for the SSDI though I am assuming he would be disqualified from receiving it. I wouldn't be surprised to find out he isn't however.

I'm a bit pessimistic and I would counter that being declared incompetent means that someone has made that subjective determination. That declaration does not make it so any more than a verdict of not guilty means someone is innocent.

Is there some reason to believe that all four of the doctors who examined him are lying or incorrect? From what I know of the case, they didn't find a single doctor who said he was competent.

As I said above, I don't really think this is a win for the defendant. From my secondhand knowledge of the case, it is my understanding that he does not believe himself incompetent and wishes to proceed and represent himself at trial. Indiana's secure mental health facilities are anything but pleasant places, Most would much rather be in gen pop.

This is a guy who appealed the denial of his speedy trial request to the Indiana Supreme Court and who objected to being found incompetent. Not seeing this as a win for him.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'm a bit pessimistic and I would counter that being declared incompetent means that someone has made that subjective determination.

Well, psychiatry may be subjective on certain points, but the Marion County Prosecuting Attorney had access to the reports of all the docs and the ability and opportunity to cross them all.

Evidence subject to cross examination and argument. I think that is as close to optimal as Man can get.

I guess Indiana could modify its incompetence standards, but you are going to run into a buzz saw of problems on federal hc.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Damned 6th Amendment. Time for a Constitutional Convention. The best time to change the Constitution is when a single case has a result we don't like.

It didn't take a constitutional convention for SCOTUS to create the right for a competency hearing, which appears nowhere in the 6th amendment, and the departure from common law's "absolutely mad" to whatever we have today. Much like the definition of "cruel", the definition of "incompetent" has shown significant creep since the signing of the Constitution. Given that doctors and medical companies routinely refuse to participate in executions, even to the point of not selling the required drugs, because "do no harm", then you'll pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical of doctors holding the key to a potential death penalty case proceeding. You'll also pardon me if I find it unlikely someone who can navigate the system enough to file junk law suits is "incompetent" enough to participate in a criminal trial.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

When I joined INGO, there was a plethora of threads about jack bootery and railroaded prosecutions.

My, how things change.

Nothing changed. In both types of cases, the truth is suppressed and the system is manipulated to thwart justice.

 

[chipbennett]

It didn't take a constitutional convention for SCOTUS to create the right for a competency hearing, which appears nowhere in the 6th amendment, and the departure from common law's "absolutely mad" to whatever we have today. Much like the definition of "cruel", the definition of "incompetent" has shown significant creep since the signing of the Constitution. Given that doctors and medical companies routinely refuse to participate in executions, even to the point of not selling the required drugs, because "due no harm", then you'll pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical of doctors holding the key to a potential death penalty case proceeding. You'll also pardon me if I find it unlikely someone who can navigate the system enough to file junk law suits is "incompetent" enough to participate in a criminal trial.

 

[printcraft]

Nothing changed. In both types of cases, the truth is suppressed and the system is manipulated to thwart justice.

Agreed. Manipulation of the law to thwart justice is not justice served.

 

[Fargo]

You guys really want to go back to the mental health system we had at common law? The current one sucks, but damn...

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You guys really want to go back to the mental health system we had at common law? The current one sucks, but damn...

That's a different topic, although one that if it were resolved would take a lot of pressure off the justice system.

 

[HoughMade]

Agreed. Manipulation of the law to thwart justice is not justice served.

Let's think about this. Let's say a criminal defendant has a stroke and goes into a coma 2 weeks before his trial. The 6th Amendment says the accused has the right to confront his accusers and has the right to assistance of counsel in his defense. Postpone the trial or not?

 

[T.Lex]

Let's think about this. Let's say a criminal defendant has a stroke and goes into a coma 2 weeks before his trial. The 6th Amendment says the accused has the right to confront his accusers and has the right to assistance of counsel in his defense. Postpone the trial or not?

This is INGO. It depends on whether he's innocent or not. Or a gun owner.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Let's think about this. Let's say a criminal defendant has a stroke and goes into a coma 2 weeks before his trial. The 6th Amendment says the accused has the right to confront his accusers and has the right to assistance of counsel in his defense. Postpone the trial or not?

Is that what's under discussion?

 

[HoughMade]

Is that what's under discussion?

Due process and applying the law in an unbiased fashion should be under discussion. We don't get to look at a given case and say the rules don't apply to him because we don't like him, but someone else gets all the rules applied be cause we are less certain of their guilt.

...but I'll play along. Can a person who is truly mentally incompetent actually confront his accusers?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Due process and applying the law in an unbiased fashion should be under discussion. We don't get to look at a given case and say the rules don't apply to him because we don't like him, but someone else gets all the rules applied be cause we are less certain of their guilt.

...but I'll play along. Can a person who is truly mentally incompetent actually confront his accusers?

I'll play along right back. If this took place prior to 1960, would this guy be truly mentally incompetent?

 

[HoughMade]

I'll play along right back. If this took place prior to 1960, would this guy be truly mentally incompetent?

So the issue for you is whether he is truly incompetent, NOT whether a person who is truly incompetent should stand trial?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So the issue for you is whether he is truly incompetent, NOT whether a person who is truly incompetent should stand trial?

Essentially, yes, and that doesn't require a Constitutional Convention to address nor is it a violation of the 6th other than because SCOTUS has "crept" the definition of incompetent so far over the past few decades. Reasonable minds can differ on exactly where the line is drawn, but I find it far from reasonable that someone who can file civil case paperwork is incompetent. You have the right to assistance, not the mandate to accept it. You have the right for the Gov't not to interfere in your ability to get assistance, not the guarantee to be smart enough to take it.

 

[HoughMade]

Essentially, yes, and that doesn't require a Constitutional Convention to address nor is it a violation of the 6th other than because SCOTUS has "crept" the definition of incompetent so far over the past few decades. Reasonable minds can differ on exactly where the line is drawn, but I find it far from reasonable that someone who can file civil case paperwork is incompetent. You have the right to assistance, not the mandate to accept it. You have the right for the Gov't not to interfere in your ability to get assistance, not the guarantee to be smart enough to take it.

Well, to be honest, I don't take a position on whether this guy is actually incompetent (though I would note that the behavior of many litigants in civil litigation is more evidence of incompetence than competence). I do, however, believe that the 6th amendment is violated when someone is incompetent such that they cannot effectively confront the witnesses and cannot meaningfully participate in their own defense, but is put on trial nonetheless. I don't care how strong the evidence of guilt is.