| Autor: |
Wool, Josh, Saragoza, Philip |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law; 2012, Vol. 40 Issue 4, p581-583, 3p |
| Abstrakt: |
The article discusses a court case wherein the Nebraska Supreme Court rejected the claim of defendant that conflicting expert opinions about his competency to stand trial should be considered in a petition for post-conviction relief. The court in the case of State v. McGhee pointed out that the defendant made no factual allegations regarding the testimony from a third expert witness about his plea of insanity. The facts of the case is presented. |
| Databáze: |
Supplemental Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
