United States v. Oscar Roca-Alvarez and Rene Valdez
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar ROCA-ALVAREZ and Rene Valdez, Defendants-Appellants
Opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING PER CURIAM:
It is ordered that the motion for rehearing filed on behalf of Appellant, Oscar Roca-Alvarez, in the above cause is hereby granted.
“In view of the doubts and ambiguities regarding the legal significance of the psychiatric testimony in this case and the resulting difficulties of retrospectively determining the petitioner’s competency” as of more than two years after trial, we reverse the judgment of conviction, “and remand the case to the District Court for a new hearing to ascertain petitioner’s present competency to stand trial, and for a new trial if petitioner is found competent.” Dusky v. United States, 1960, 362 U.S. 402 , 80 S.Ct. 788 , 4 L.Ed.2d 824 .
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Alfredo G. Parrish, Etc. v. Board of Commissioners of the Alabama State Bar, Etc. - Alabama Black Lawyers Association v. Board of Commissioners of the Alabama State Bar, Etc.
- Parrish v. Board of Commissioners
- State v. McRae
- Danielson v. Winnfield Funeral Home of Jefferson, Inc.
- United States v. Eisenberg
- Lawrence E. Bowling v. David Mathews
Most recent
- State v. McRae
- United States v. Eisenberg
- Danielson v. Winnfield Funeral Home of Jefferson, Inc.
- Alfredo G. Parrish, Etc. v. Board of Commissioners of the Alabama State Bar, Etc. - Alabama Black Lawyers Association v. Board of Commissioners of the Alabama State Bar, Etc.
- Parrish v. Board of Commissioners
- Lawrence E. Bowling v. David Mathews
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.