Competency to Stand Trial Chapter Overview (Page 1) - Chapter focuses on competency to stand trial evaluations and restoring incompetent defendants to competency General Information on CST (Page 2) - CST refers to a defendant's ability to participate adequately in criminal proceedings and aid in their own defense - If a defendant has lost touch with reality, their trial preparation and ability to understand proceedings would be impaired, jnaking a trial unjust - Most common forensic evaluation is to determine a defendant's competency - Goal of evaluations is often to restore competence so the defendant can stand trial - Being found incompetent is not equivalent to an acquittal and does not necessarily end the legal proceedings The Examinations - Evaluations focus on a defendant's current mental state and ability to understand legal concepts and assist counsel - Evaluators look for signs of malingering or feigned symptoms Restoring Competency - Defendants found incompetent can sometimes be "restored to competence" through education, medication, or other treatment to prepare them for trial - Historically, being found incompetent could result in indefinite commitment if competence couldn't be restored Intro to CST (Page 3) - CST refers to a defendant's ability to understand proceedings and assist in their own defense - If a defendant is psychotic or delusional, they would not understand plea options or be able to meaningfully assist in their defense - Incompetent defendants were once subject to lifelong commitment if not restored, which was considered worse than a criminal sentence Types of Legal Competencies (Page 4) - Competency is assessed for different legal contexts including: - Waiving Miranda rights - Confessing to crimes - Making medical treatment decisions - Creating legal documents like wills - Caring for oneself or managing finances Competency to Stand Trial (CST) The Dusky Standard (Page 5) - Modem conception of CST defined by the 1960 case Dusky v. United States - Addresses a defendant's psychological state at the time of trial, not the time of the crime which relates to the insanity defense Functions Required for Competency (Page 6-7) - Adjudicative Competence - Foundational Competence: Ability to identify roles of judge, prosecution, defense - Decisional Competence: Ability to make informed independent decisions - CST is a low legal bar, not a measure of mental health - My & Zglls study found over 2/3 of defendants with severe disorders were still found competent - Ten court-related functions a defendant must demonstrate: 1. Understand current legal situation 2. Understand charges 3. Understand pleas 4. Understand possible penalties 5. Understand roles of judge, defense, and prosecution 6. Trust and communicate with defense counsel 7. Help locate witnesses 8. Aid in developing cross-exam strategy 9. Act appropriately during trial 10. Make decisions about trial strategy (Page 7) When Competency is Questioned (Page 8) - Defendants are presumed competent by default - Defendant or defense must raise competency issue - Standard for CST evaluation is "bona fide" or good faith, not an agreement of incompetence - Judges prefer incompetent defendants not go to trial - Children may be considered due to immaturity even without delays or low IQ, especially if tried as adults - Substantial increase in last 30 years of trying adolescents as adults Competency Evaluation Requests Reasons a defense attorney may request a competency evaluation: - To delay the trial. (Page 9) - To keep the defendant from being released on bail. (Page 9) - To test the waters for a possible insanity defense. (Page 9) Competency Evaluation Process - Defense attorneys must be careful when requesting lesser charges for competency restoration because the defendant may spend longer in the program than serving a prison sentence. (Page 9) The Competency Evaluation - CST evaluations are conducted by psychologists but are not true psychological exams. (Page 10) - Originally, IQ tests and personality inventories like the MMPI-2 were used but did not assess understanding of the legal system. (Page 10) Forensic Assessment Instruments - Newer assessment tools called Forensic Assessment Instruments (FAIs) have been developed to specifically evaluate a defendant's understanding of the legal system. (Page 10) - There is no universally agreed upon competency evaluation method or test. (Page 10) The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MagCAT-CA) - Commonly used competency evaluation developed by researchers. (Page 11) - Takes about 30 minutes to administer. (Page 11) - Judgements of competency are subjective based on the examiner's evaluation, there is no passing score. (Page 11) - Designed to assess the defendant's understanding of the legal system, ability to reason, and knowledge/appreciation of their specific case. (Page 11) - There is a version to evaluate juvenile defendants as well. (Page 11) Mock Competency Examination Video - Watching a mock competency exam video gives a good representation of the types of questions asked. (Page 12) - Questions in the video may seem leading but the examiner states they will do a follow up interview to clarify responses. (Page 12) Malingering Definition and Detection (Page 14) - Malingering: The intentional faking of illness motivated by external incentives/goals - Difficult to detect competency exams, but defense attorneys should warn of consequences of being found incompetent vs guilty - Some exams created to test for malingering, e.g. Inventory of Legal Knowledge General Note on Malingering (Page 15) - Even trained psychologists had difficulty malingering on psychological tests for mental disorders - Most psychological tests are carefully developed and test for validity, reliability, catching malingering - However, CST exams are not psychological tests Evaluating Competency Evaluation Examiners (Page 16) - How reliable are CST exam results? - Examiners must also be evaluated - Gowensmith, Murrie, & Bocgaccini (2012): 3 examiners agreed on diagnosis in 216 cases 71% of the time. Higher agreement desired. - Firsthand experience: A story about my own CST evaluation experiences - Malingering: Intentional faking of illness for external incentives - Difficult to detect with competency exams alone - Defense should warn of incompetent vs guilty consequences - Exams created to test for malingering, .g Inventory of Legal Knowledge - Even psychologists had difficulty malingering on tests for mental disorders - Psychological tests are carefully developed and test for issues like malingering - However, CST exams are not psychological tests - Reliability of CST exam results desired to be higher than 71% agreement in 216 cases - Examiners must also be evaluated for reliability - Personal experience with CST evaluations to draw from My internship at Bellevue Forensic Ward - 1 did an internship at Bellevue Forensic Ward in NYC while getting my MA, observed live competency to stand trial (CST) evaluations. - Security was very tight, needed badge to access forensic ward. (Page 17) - Small room for evaluations, myself, evaluator, defendant. Evaluating potential defendants for murder trials. (Page 17) - One defendant murdered family with decorative samurai sword, very disturbing case. (Page 17) - Security guard stationed outside room, would have felt safer with him inside. (Page 17) CST Evaluations - Formed own conclusions before seeing evaluator results based on class learning. (Page 18) - Often disagreed with examiners conclusions. (Page 18) - Questions seemed arbitrary/irrelevant sometimes, like about nearby sports stadiums. (Page 18) - Felt I would have gotten some questions wrong too. (Page 18) - Overall not that impressed by CST evaluations themselves, evaluators very professional though. (Page 19) Bellevue Research Study - Looked through archival data, found history of drug use and few other variables strongly predicted incompetency. (Page 19) CST Restoration Treatments - Evaluator reports contain recommendations for restoration of competency treatments. (Page 20) - 60,000 criminal defendants evaluated for CST yearly. (Page 20) - About 28% found incompetent and referred for treatment. (Page 20) - Of those referred, 70% restored to competency within 6 months. (Page 20) (Pirelli et al., 2011) - Characteristics of incompetent defendants: unemployed, unmarried, lower intelligence, mental illness, drug abuse, less serious crimes. (Page 20) - Single strongest predictor of incompetency is psychotic disorder like schizophrenia. (Page 20) B 1. Discussion Question: Create a post with a discussion question. This can be a short post, just a sentence or three, that poses an interesting question. For example, \"Based on the material from this week, what additional research do psychologists need to conduct to continue to understand and reduce racial prejudice?\" Or \"In addition to business meetings and juries, what are some other situations where we could see group decision-making happening in the real world? And what would potential problems could arise during such a meeting?\