Pate v. Robinson – judge must inquire if a bona fide doubt is raised as to a D’s CST
Judge has independent obligation if doubt arises/ notice  … not matter if neither side raises issue
It is not waivable, suggesting can be raised for first time on appeal or habeas
Drope – D shot self mid-trial; should have given judge serious doubts to CST
Competency Hearing
expert (usually psychiatrist)
judge determines the two Dusky factors
usually just judge (federal); TX uses “courthouse jury” (round people up)
problem:  can’t be used in subsequent proceeding
burden of persuasion usually on P
*some like CA say burden on D … USSC says this is ok
*but too far to say D has burden by clear and convincing evidence
failure to notify attorney that competency exam would involve sentencing issues unconstitutional (Estelle v. Smith)
Competency evaluation cannot turn into evidence gathering for prosecution (Powell)