It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Signing a statement while intoxicated on meds. Trying to find the terminology for it.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
I know it's inadmissible in a court of law because he was not coherent at the time, but I am trying to find the technical law for it. Does anyone know where I should be looking. I have couple of law books but I can't remember the technical term for it.

It's not incoherent, duress, or DUI. Bah..

I have the term word at the tip of my head and I can't think of it.

Anything that boy said will not be admissible because of the heavy meds he was on. I know whatever he said can not be used against him.
edit on 3-6-2012 by Manhater because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Manhater
 


How about " not of sound mind"



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by type0civ
 


lol, tell me it's not that simple.




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Manhater
 


I think it usually applies to sanity...but it may apply. You will have to now do your "due diligence"...I used watch alot of law and order so I'm qualified to give you this advice.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
It's called intoxication. It doesn't have to be from alcohol.
However, generally if intoxication is self-induced, it is not defense to an act committed.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manhater
reply to post by type0civ
 


lol, tell me it's not that simple.




Well, you could make it sound more fancy: Non Compos Mentis



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
I took Criminal Law but it's been a few years. Need to brush up on it in one day.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Manhater
 


Impaired...would be the word

second line



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Manhater
 


The argument would be that the signed statement is inadmissible on the grounds that it was procured while under diminished mental capacity. Whether or not the judge rules in favor of such a motion depends on the specific drugs in his system at the time and the evidence he (or his lawyer) provides to substantiate that the drugs in question caused, or likely caused, diminished mental capacity. The verbiage used depends on the state, but that's the basic premise.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by dyllels
 


Ha!! Latin!! Not enuff coffee yet...go with the latin term and you are sure to win..again becuz of my experience with law and order.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Explanation: S&F!


Here is the legal latin ...

Non compos mentis [wiki]


Non compos mentis is a term meaning 'not of sound mind'. Non compos mentis derives from the Latin non meaning "not", compos meaning "having (command of)", and mentis (genitive singular of mens), meaning "mind". It is the direct opposite of Compos mentis (of a composed mind).

[edit] UsageAlthough typically used in law, this term can also be used metaphorically or figuratively; e.g. when one is in a confused state, intoxicated, or not of sound mind.

Also applicable in health care, when a determination of competency needs to be made by a physician for purposes of obtaining informed consent for treatments and, if necessary, assigning a surrogate to make health care decisions. While the proper sphere for this determination is in a court of law, this is practically, and most frequently, made by physicians in the clinical setting.

In English law, the rule of non compos mentis was most commonly used when the defendant invoked religious or magical explanations for behaviour.


And a reference article ...

Assessment of Patients' Competence to Consent to Treatment (by Paul S. Appelbaum, M.D. N Engl J Med 2007; 357:1834-1840 November 1, 2007) [nejm.org]


The Clinical Problem
Physicians are required by law and medical ethics to obtain the informed consent of their patients before initiating treatment.1 Valid informed consent is premised on the disclosure of appropriate information to a competent patient who is permitted to make a voluntary choice. When patients lack the competence to make a decision about treatment, substitute decision makers must be sought. Hence, the determination of whether patients are competent is critical in striking a proper balance between respecting the autonomy of patients who are capable of making informed decisions and protecting those with cognitive impairment.


Personal Disclosure: I hope this helps!



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Uh.. How. About 'null and void'. Or signed under durress? If you make an agreement while intoxicted, it isnt legally binding. Eta: which is odd since when you get a dui, they make you agree to get blood drawn, or you lose your license for mandatory year. So the po's get people to agree to things under durres and while intoxicated all the time. But hey, the are authority so that doesnt count.
edit on 3-6-2012 by Myendica because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
I think all he needs to do tomorrow is ask for a continuation to have adequate time to find legal counsel.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Manhater
 


If he's not represented by counsel he has the right, at any point in the procedure, to request an continuance so he may seek counsel. He can burn up 2 months or more doing that. He should get at least 30 days on his first request, and likely another 30 days if he comes back and says that he's been having difficulty finding an attorney he can afford. Another thing he can do to buy time and become a thorn in the side of the prosecutor is file as many motions as possible. They need to be based on the law, but there's no limit on how many motions he can file. The prosecuting attorney has to submit formal responses to each motion with the court, and the judge has to rule on each motion. Since different types of motions are valid at different stages of the proceedings, the inundation of paperwork let's the prosecutor know that the case is going to be a pain in the ass to take to trial. Also, the "people" are generally given a specific timeframe in which they must respond to your motions, or risk default judgment on those motions in the defendant's favor. This can lead to dismissal of the case, depending on the nature of the motion, or dismissal on the grounds that the right to a speedy trial has been violated.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Manhater
 


Incapacitated. His/her mental abilities were altered due to a subtance injected or consumed that is known to cause a decrease in the ability to comprehend actions and/or consequences. Non-legal term might be FUBAR.

Cheers - Dave


edit on 6/3.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by draco49
 


Yeah, I won't know any of the doctrines or appeals that the prosecuting attorney has on him until tomorrow. He will probably have to go to trial. He's nervous. He's a good kid.

He shot the Plaintiff and I've known the defendant for a very long time and I know he wouldn't of shot him if he didn't think he was scared or in danger. Plaintiff had 2 other friends with him, so it was a 3 to 1 ratio and the officers didn't do any forensics of fingerprints to capture the other two for questioning. But, I know they were in that house. Plus, there is no way he would been able to hold a shotgun upright and in full force with the way his mental capacity was that day. He was heavily medicated on drugs because of a car accident that happened that morning, and he was released from the hospital that day moments prior to the event.

He shot the kid in the foot, which tells me, either they struggled with the gun and it went off or he couldn't hold it due him being so intoxicated that it went off and hit his foot. I don't think any malice intent is there, he said he and his friends cornered him and he got the shotgun to ward them off, shotgun was aimed towards the floor. Which means the guy was close enough to where he did corner him to get shot. It wasn't aimed at his head or heart.

He wouldn't of done what he did if he wasn't scared for his life.

edit on 3-6-2012 by Manhater because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manhater
reply to post by draco49
 


Yeah, I won't know any of the doctrines or appeals that the prosecuting attorney has on him until tomorrow. He will probably have to go to trial. He's nervous. He's a good kid.

He shot the Plaintiff and I've known the defendant for a very long time and I know he wouldn't of shot him if he didn't think he was scared or in danger. Plaintiff had 2 other friends with him, so it was a 3 to 1 ratio and the officers didn't do any forensics of fingerprints to capture the other two for questioning. But, I know they were in that house. Plus, there is no way he would been able to hold a shotgun upright and in full force with the way his mental capacity was that day. He was heavily medicated on drugs because of a car accident that happened that morning, and he was released from the hospital that day moments prior to the event.

He shot the kid in the foot, which tells me, either they struggled with the gun and it went off or he couldn't hold it due him being so intoxicated that it went off and hit his foot. I don't think any malice intent is there, he they cornered him and the shotgun aimed at floor?? Means the guy was close enough to where he did corner him to get shot.

He wouldn't of done what he did if he wasn't scared for his life.

edit on 3-6-2012 by Manhater because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-6-2012 by Manhater because: (no reason given)


Who? What? Where? When?

Is it just me or have there been several threads lately that just start talking in the middle of something??



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
1st of all.. You can always incriminate yourseelf. If you dont utilize 5th ameendment, you lose. Regardless of how retarded or intoxicated you are. 2nd.. You are a man hater, why are you trying to help a man?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


Because he's a good kid whom I believe did feel threatened when he used his weapon. He shouldn't have to suffer the rest of his life because of 3 idiots who wouldn't leave him alone.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join