Riggins v. Nevada: Defendants Don't Have to Take Antipsychotic Drugs During Trial

Riggins v. Nevada: Defendants Don't Have to Take Antipsychotic Drugs During Trial

Riggins v. Nevada

Timeline of History

History Topics
Countries

Decided: Riggins v. Nevada - In a 7-2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court overturns David Riggins' murder conviction because during this trial the state forced him to take antipsychotic drugs. This impaired his ability to testify on his own behalf.

According to the Court, defendants' constitutional rights would be protected so long as any medication they are forced to take is the "least intrusive" means for providing for competence and if the treament is "medically appropriate" for protecting both the defendants' safety as well as the safety of others.

User comments

There are no user comments for this item.

Ratings (the higher the better)
Interesting
Comment
    Please enter the security code.
 
 
Powered by JReviews

Today's Major Events

Earl Warren Resigns as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
Birth of Future Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
Alabama Governor Fob James: Constitution's First Amendment Doesn't Apply to States
Birth of Alfred C. Kinsey, Researcher on Human Sexuality and Sexual Behavior