During the hearing in mental health court to determine treatment, Jodi, being a law student, starts to question the psychiatrist. She is well versed in the requirements that are needed for involuntary medication, and she insists on cross examining the psychiatrist, despite the judge advising her to defer to her attorney.
In such a case, a law student who is knowledgeable about the legal system would do well on scoring instruments. However, in undergoing a thorough CST evaluation, the evaluator would realize that the defendant is paranoid and likely unable to assist in her own defense despite having a strong factual base of knowledge. She is viewing the situation through a psychotic process.
This defendant would also be recommended as IST, despite her in-depth knowledge of the law, as she was unable to comport her behavior appropriately in the civil mental health court. By extrapolation, if the criminal court judge ordered a CST evaluation, she would likely be recommended to the court as IST because she was unable to work with her attorney in civil court due to mental illness symptoms. Although there are no diagnoses that equal IST, psychosis and intellectual disability are the 2 most common clinical reasons that defendants are found incompetent to stand trial.
Nonetheless, a defendant with schizophrenia can be competent and, similarly, a defendant with intellectual disability can be competent. Consider the following case example. He was not a high school graduate; he dropped out in the middle of tenth grade as he no longer wanted to go to school.
He successfully worked with his attorney on several other misdemeanors, both in family court as a juvenile and in the criminal court system as an adult. He has never served time, as he always managed to get probation. Tony violates a no contact order, and because of his history of intellectual disability, his competency to stand trial is questioned. After an evaluation, including a clinical evaluation and the CAST-MR, it is clear that he has an understanding of the charges and their potential consequences.
Plus, as a result of years of experience in the court system, Tony also has a good handle on the trial process. He tells you that he is interested in accepting a deal, because it will allow him to avoid going to jail. Tony further explains he would prefer to admit to some form of guilt to be quickly paroled so that he can see his newborn child.
This case illustrates that an intellectual disability does not automatically equate with incompetence. Prior experience in the legal system would be an important factor in this case. The defendant had repeated exposure to the system, giving him a lot of practical experience. As such, it is likely that he would be competent to stand trial, even though he has an intellectual disability. Currently, public mental health services are inundated with court referrals for CST evaluations.
This has resulted in wait lists for competency-related services for jail detainees. Better collaboration between the criminal justice and clinical care systems could improve services for persons with serious mental illness in the legal system.
Dr Wall is a clinical psychiatrist, treating patients in the Providence, Rhode Island area. He is also a clinical professor at Brown University and provides expert witness consultations for medical-legal purposes. Criminal Competencies. The legal concept of competence to stand trial has ancient roots.
The history of this legal construct in Anglo-Saxon law will be reviewed. A competent defendant is a requirement of the criminal justice system because it reflects interests related to the dignity of the process, the accuracy of adjudication, and respect for the autonomy of defendants. In the United States, legal decisions have established the contours of the requirements related to competent participation in adjudication.
Forensic psychiatrists have operationalized the requirements for assessment purposes. Recent decisions in the United States have expanded earlier notions of competence to include decision-making during the course of adjudication. These decisions will be reviewed. The process of clinical evaluation, the use of collateral information, and other aspects of expert opinion formation will be reviewed.
In addition, the special problems posed by amnesia, pro se defendants, competence to plead insanity, and unrestorable defendants will be discussed. The use of standardized assessment tools will also be reviewed.
The application to the Indian criminal justice system will be discussed. Assessment of a defendant's Competence to stand trial is the most common forensic evaluation performed in the United States.
Originally, based on a requirement of form — the trial could not proceed until the defendant had entered a plea — in modern times, the requirement for competency is based on the fundamental notions regarding justice. In this article, I will provide an overview of competency to stand trial CST , sometimes referred to as adjudicative competency. The review will cover the underlying legal theories, landmark legal decisions, and aspects of forensic assessment. To preserve the dignity of the judicial process, a defendant must have an understanding of the nature and purposes of the criminal proceedings.
Absent such understanding, the defendant is not being regarded as an accountable person, but merely as an object of the prosecution's attempt to mete out punishment. The participation of a competent defendant is important to achieving reliable outcomes in the judicial process. For example, an incompetent defendant may have knowledge of facts but not understand their importance and, therefore, may not convey relevant information to counsel. The competency requirement serves society's interest in maintaining a reliable criminal justice system.
Under the law, certain decisions are to be made by the criminal defendant. These include the plea decision. If there is a trial, the defendant must decide whether it should be tried before a jury, whether to be present at the trial, and whether to testify. In the United States, these decisions involve waiver of constitutional rights and must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
Defendants also play a role in decisions regarding the formulation of the theory of the defense. In , the Court, in Dusky v. United States, set forth the standard to be used in federal courts. In , the Court made clear that the requirement of competency in the criminal process was of fundamental importance. In Drope v. In , the Court addressed the issue of decision-making capacity as it related to CST in Godinez v.
Before this ruling, the lower courts in the United States had been divided on the issue of whether decisions, such as pleading guilty, required a higher level of competency see 3, at page In , the Supreme Court of the United States addressed the issue of competency to waive counsel for the purposes of self-representation in Indiana v.
The forensic evaluation of CST may arise in various ways. For example, the defense counsel may request an assessment that will be protected by privilege. However, most evaluations are compelled and reported findings are delivered to the court. Therefore, it is important to take proper measures to protect against self-incrimination. In these circumstances, the mental health professional should disclose to the defendant the nature of the evaluation, who has retained or appointed the evaluator, lack of ordinary doctor—patient confidentiality, possibility that the evaluator may be called on to testify about the evaluation, and right of the defendant not to answer questions.
The clinician conducting the evaluation should keep multiple goals in mind. First, the evaluation should determine whether the defendant has a mental disorder.
A thorough mental status examination will lead to a description of signs and symptoms of mental disorder, if they present. The forensic assessment, as described below, will identify any impairment of capacities related to the required competency. In the event of a finding of incompetency, the diagnosis and related information will provide important prognostic information regarding restoration.
The forensic clinician should prepare for the interview by reviewing records, speaking with the defendant's attorney, and determining whether more information should be gathered. They have the authority to order that a defendant take medication to address a condition if this would make them competent.
A judge will need to determine competency early in the process, as soon as it is raised. Either the prosecution or the defense may raise the issue, and the judge also can raise it on their own if neither side does.
According to Sell V. United States , a court can legally order a defendant to take medication to make them competent to stand trial in certain circumstances. Many states provide that a psychological evaluation will be an automatic part of this process, and judges in any state can order this evaluation. A judge likely will rely heavily on the opinion of the psychologist, but they can take their own observations into account as well. According to Indiana v.
Edwards , a defendant can be mentally competent to stand trial without having the mental competence to represent themselves.
Some situations in which a defendant is not likely to be found incompetent are when they lack a certain level of education or are simply not smart. They need to be able to make decisions, but they do not need to make smart decisions.
Similarly, they do not need to understand all of the legal nuances of the case to the extent that an attorney would. Defendants who are foreign nationals and who do not speak English fluently will not be found incompetent on that basis. A competency evaluation uses a very lenient standard, and it generally will be met unless a defendant is struggling with a serious mental illness.
Last reviewed October Criminal Law Contents. A defendant or their attorney cannot waive the issue of competency. Criminal Law. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors in Criminal Sentencing. Restitution for Crime Victims. Receiving Immunity for Testimony in a Criminal Case.
0コメント