Bishop v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR PIMA CTY.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a trial court is not bound by the opinions of health experts it appoints and may disagree with their findings because the “determination of both fact and law is [the court’s]”
• stating that \it defies reality to pretend that the lawyer has formed opinions on competency without relying upon discussions with the defendant\
• stating that \it defies reality to pretend that the lawyer has formed opinions on competency without relying upon discussions with the defendant\
• determining that opinion work product questions asked of defense counsel by court at competency hearing were, in part, permitted because of hearing’s essentially non-adversarial objective
• noting that because of the unique nature of a hearing to determine competency to stand trial, the attorney’s duty is to aid the judge in reaching the correct decision
• holding, in part, that at retrospective hearing to determine whether defendant was competent when he pled guilty to first-degree murder, attorney who represented defendant at the time of the guilty plea was required to testify on the issue of whether the defendant was competent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).