Mental Competency Evaluations

1 28 Court Review - Summer 2000 Competency to stand trial is a concept of jurisprudenceallowing the postponement of criminal proceedings forthose defendants who are considered unable to participatein their defense on account of Mental or physical disorder. Ithas been estimated that between 25,000 and 39,000 competen-cy Evaluations are conducted in the United States is, between 2% and 8% of all felony defendants are referredfor Competency this article, we will present an overview of competencylaws, research, methods of assessment, and the content ofreports to the courts conducted by clinicians, with the aim ofproviding a summary of relevant information about competen-cy issues.

2 The purpose of this article is to inform key partici-pants in the legal system (prosecutors and defense attorneys, aswell as judges) about the current state of the discipline of foren-sic psychology with respect to Evaluations of & DEFINITIONP rovisions allowing for a delay of trial because a defendantwas incompetent to proceed have long been a part of legal dueprocess. English common law allowed for the arraignment,trial, judgment, or execution of an alleged capital offender to bestayed if he or she be(came) absolutely mad.

3 4 Over time,statutes have been created that have further defined and extend-ed the common-law practice. The modern standard in law was established in Dusky the exact wording varies, all states usea variant of the Dusky standard to define , the United States Supreme Court ruled that a minimumlevel of rational understanding of the proceedings and ability tohelp one s attorney was required:[I]t is not enough for the district judge to find that the defendant [is] oriented to time and place and [has]some recollection of events, but that the test must bewhether he has sufficient present ability to consult withhis lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational under-standing and whether he has a rational as well as fac-tual understanding of the proceedings against him.

4 7 Although the concept of Competency to stand trial has beenlong established in law, its definition, as exemplified by theambiguities of Dusky, has never been explicit. What is meant by sufficient present ability ? How does one determine whether adefendant has a rational as well as factual understanding ? Tobe sure, some courts8and legislatures9have provided generaldirection to evaluators in the form of articulated Duskystan-dards,10but the typical forensic evaluation is left largely unguid-ed except by a common principle, in most published cases, thatevaluators cannot reach a finding of incompetency independentof the facts of the case at article was adapted from Ronald Roesch, Patricia A.

5 Zapf,Stephen L. Golding & Jennifer L. Skeem, Defining and AssessingCompetency to stand Trial, in HANDBOOK OFFORENSICPSYCHOLOGY327(Irving B. Weiner & Allen K. Hess, eds., 2d ed. 1999)Footnotes1. Steven K. Hoge, et al., The MacArthur Adjudicative CompetenceStudy: Development and Validation of a Research Instrument, 21 LAW& HUM. BEHAV. 141 (1997); Henry J. Steadman & E. Hartstone,Defendants Incompetent to stand Trial, in MENTALLYDISORDEREDOFFENDERS: PERSPECTIVESFROMLAWANDSOCIALSCIENCE39 (JohnMonahan & Henry J.)

6 Steadman eds., 1983).2. Richard J. Bonnie, The Competence of Criminal Defendants: ATheoretical Reformulation, 10 BEHAV. SCI. & L. 291 (1992); STEPHENL. GOLDING, INTERDISCIPLINARYFITNESSINTERVIEW-REVISE D: A TRAIN-ING MANUAL(1992); Steven K. Hoge, et al., Attorney-clientDecision-making in Criminal Cases: Client Competence andParticipation as Perceived by Their Attorneys, 10 BEHAV. SCI. & (1992).3. This article focuses on Competency issues within the UnitedStates. For a review of Competency issues with respect toCanadian laws and practice, the reader is referred to Patricia & Ronald Roesch, Assessing Fitness to stand Trial: AComparison of Institution-based Evaluations and a Brief ScreeningInterview, 16 CAN.

7 J. COMMUNITYMENTALHEALTH53 (1997); andPatricia A. Zapf & Ronald Roesch, A Comparison of Canadian andAmerican Standards for Competence to stand Trial, INTL. J. L. &PSYCH. (in press).4. Hale, 1973, cited in P. R. Silten & R. Tullis, Mental Competency inCriminal Proceedings, 28 1053, 1053 (1977).5. 362 402 (1960).6. R. J. Favole, Mental Disability in the American Criminal Process: AFour Issue Survey, in MENTALLYDISORDEREDOFFENDERS:PERSPECTIVES FROMLAW ANDSOCIALSCIENCE247 (John Monahan &Henry J. Steadman eds.)

8 , 1983).7. 362 at 402 (quoting from brief of Solicitor General). , ,Wieter v. Settle, 193 F. Supp. 318 ( Mo. 1961). , ,Utah Code Ann. 77-15-1 et seq.(2000).10. Standards of competence have been one area of inquiry; the con-ceptualization of competence is another. Some researchers andscholars have provided reconceptualizations of competence tostand trial. Bruce J. Winick has persuasively argued that, in somecircumstances, it might be in the best interests of the defendant toproceed with a trial, even if he or she is incompetent.

9 SeeBruceJ. Winick, Restructuring Competency to stand Trial, 32 UCLA 921 (1985); and Bruce J. Winick, Reforming Incompetency toStand Trial and Plead Guilty: A Restated Proposal and a Response toProfessor Bonnie,85 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY571 (1995).Winick postulated that this could take the form of a provisionaltrial in which the support of the defense attorney would serve toensure protection of the defendant. This would allow the defen-dant to proceed with his or her case while maintaining decorumMental Competency Evaluations :Guidelines for Judges and Attorneys Patricia A.

10 Zapf and Ronald RoeschOVERVIEW OF LEGAL PROCEDURESThe issue of Competency may be raised at any point in theadjudication a court determines that a bona fidedoubt exists as to a defendant s Competency , it must considerthis issue formally,12and usually after a forensic evaluation ,which can take place in a jail, an outpatient facility, or in aninstitutional legal issue that may concern evaluators of competencyto stand trial is whether information obtained in a competencyevaluation can be used against a defendant during the guiltphase of a trial or at sentencing.