Competency to Stand Trial

Abstract

A core principle of modern-day law is that all defendants maintain the right to a fair trial. A defendant must be able to factually and rationally understand and participate in a court process, the ability to do so deems the defendant competent. Competency is relevant through all stages of the criminal justice process from arrest through sentencing. This article describes research and scholarship related to competency to stand trial. Competency to stand trial is a doctrine of jurisprudence that requires criminal proceedings to be postponed if a defendant is unable to meaningfully participate in his or her defense on account of a mental disease or defect. The US law regarding trial competency was established in the 1960 US Supreme Court Case Dusky v. United States (cited under Origins of Competency to Stand Trial and Key Legal Cases), and currently all states use some variant of the Dusky standard, with the exact definition varying by jurisdiction. Competency evaluations are essential to ensure the protection of a defendant’s due process rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. Approximately sixty thousand defendants are evaluated for trial competency annually, making this the most common forensic issue evaluated. Ultimately, an individual’s competency is a legal issue and does not have a distinct or easily identifiable psychological correlate. However, judges’ rulings closely follow mental health professionals’ recommendations most of the time, highlighting the importance of forensic mental health evaluators understanding the reason for the referral, the concerns surrounding competency, and the specific demands of the case. Issues of competency may be raised at any point during the proceedings, and if a bona fide doubt exists regarding competency, the issue must be formally considered: thus requiring a forensic evaluation. A defendant’s competency is assessed based on his or her present ability to understand court proceedings, make educated legal decisions, conduct oneself in a manner appropriate for court, and contribute to the development and execution of one’s legal defense. Forensic evaluators are tasked with describing the degree of congruence or incongruence between the relevant jurisdictional competency standard and the defendant’s current abilities. To complete this task, forensic evaluators must maintain a combination of advanced clinical skills coupled with knowledge about the legal system, competency standards, and the proper interpretation of the data collected for the evaluation.

Forensic e-mental health: Review, research priorities, and policy directions.

“…It follows that cognitive remediation could also improve neurocognitive functioning among defendants opined incompetent to proceed. This assertion is supported by forensic mental health and neuropsychology theory (Schwalbe & Medalia, 2007; Zapf, 2013), as well as a small pilot study that revealed cognitive remediation can improve Dusky reasoning abilities, particularly among individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia (Wilson, 2015).…”

Appraising Jackson-based unrestorability to competence to stand trial: The demonstration model.

“…This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. UNRESTORABILITY AND THE DEMONSTRATION MODEL 3 restoration units far longer than those who are restored (Zapf & Roesch, 2006). Consequently, defendants who are potentially unrestorable continue to occupy a bed that could otherwise be used to treat a defendant who is adjudicated IST and waitlisted for hospitalbased restoration Gowensmith, 2019).…”

Assessment and restoration of competency to stand trial with older adults.

“…of those found incompetent and subsequently referred for restoration, the majority are restored or trained back to competency (murrie & Zelle, 2015). a variety of restoration approaches and programs have been employed, ideally targeted to the defendant's deficits, including psychotropic medication, educational treatment programs focused on legal issues and communication with the attorney, and cognitive remediation (murrie & Zelle, 2015;Zapf, 2013). most restoration programs are successful.…”

“…Unfortunately, other aspects of this study, such as age or type of offense, were not specified. as a benchmark for time to restoration, Zapf (2013) observed that the average length of stay for competency restoration at a hospital in Washington state for felony defendants was 81 days and, of those restored, 78% were done within 90 days. for those restored, days to restoration for nonfelony defendants was 29 days.…”