The following excerpt is from Makal v. State of Ariz., 544 F.2d 1030 (9th Cir. 1976):
A more troublesome problem is presented to us by our decision in Sieling v. Eyman, 478 F.2d 211 (9th Cir. 1973). There, the defendant had been charged with multiple counts of assault and assault with intent to commit murder. Three psychiatrists, after a thorough examination of the defendant, found him insane at the time the crimes were committed, but two of the three doctors found him competent to stand trial, and the trial court concluded that the defendant was competent. Shortly before trial and approximately a month after the mental examinations, Sieling notified the court that he wished to change his plea:
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.