Case Citator › Godinez v. Moran

Godinez v. Moran

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
509 U.S. 389
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
92 of 92
Citing cases (total)
92
Treatment dates
2008
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Limited — All 92 flagged citations to Godinez v. Moran have been read. The Supreme Court later held that states may require counsel for defendants who are competent to stand trial but too seriously mentally ill to conduct their own defense at trial.
More on how this was screened

That confirmed limit is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

92 later cases cite Godinez v. Moran; 92 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Godinez v. Moran?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Supreme Court held that Godinez left open whether a state may require counsel for a defendant who is competent to stand trial but, because of severe mental illness, cannot conduct the trial alone; it answered yes.

    Indiana v. Edwards · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Godinez’s constitutional holding is that a State may do so. But that holding simply does not tell a State whether it may deny a gray-area defendant the right to represent himself — the matter at issue here. ... That is to say, the Constitution permits States to insist upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to stand trial under Dusky but who still suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Godinez v. Moran and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace