Citation

Perlin ML. Behav. Sci. Law 1996; 14(1): 61-81.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1996, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1002/(SICI)1099-0798(199624)14:1<61::AID-BSL226>3.0.CO;2-G

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This article considers the Colin Ferguson trial in the context of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Godinez v. Moran, establishing a unitary standard for the determinations of competence to stand trial, competence to plead guilty, and competence to waive counsel. The Ferguson trial was widely seen as a "charade." I argue that the Ferguson spectacle was the inevitable denouement of the Godinez decision. I then look at the Ferguson trial (through contemporaneous press and television coverage) under the filters of "sanism" and "pretextuality." I conclude that the "dignity" value--a prerequisite for a constitutionally-acceptable fair trial--was, as a result of Godinez, lacking in the Ferguson case.

Language: en