have therefore determined that, in aid of the proper exercise of this Court’s certiorari jurisdiction, the Federal District Court in which this proceeding commenced should upon due notice to the State and all other interested parties make a judicial determination as to Rees’ mental competence and render a report on the matter to us. Id.; see also Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 180, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975) (“[E]videnee of a defendant’s irrational behavior, his demeanor at trial, and any prior medical opinion on competence to stand trial are all relevant in determining whether further inquiry is required, but ... even one of these factors standing alone may, in some circumstances, be sufficient.”); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 385-86, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966) (<HOLDING>). Like the Supreme Court in Rees, we require
holding that further inquiry into falsity of defendants prior testimony in a rape case is barred holding that resentencing is required holding that further inquiry is required where a defendant displays irrational behavior holding that once probable cause is established officer is not required to investigate further holding that where the statutory scheme is clear the inquiry should end