Competency to stand trial evaluations: a study of actual practice in two states

Narrowing the Gap: How a Research Intervention Influenced Clinical Forensic Practice

“…While this finding may have been related to the lack of specific mention of these abilities in the ARCrP, these results were consistent with those from previous studies (Robbins et al, 1997;. In fact, in a follow-up to their initial research on competency evaluations, described the difficulties evaluators had in addressing higherorder decisional abilities such as a defendant's ability to appreciate or reason as it relates to the legal case.…”

“…Further, they noted that the elements most frequently cited were those that related to the more basic competence-related abilities, such as an understanding of the legal process or ability to disclose information to one's attorney, while the higher-order, decisional abilities that relate to the defendant's capacity to make a choice regarding his or her legal options were more often absent from the report . These findings are similar to those of Robbins, Waters, and Herbert (1997) who reviewed competency evaluation reports from New Jersey and Nebraska and found that functional abilities related to competency were only addressed in about half of the reports reviewed. Robbins and her colleagues (1997) concluded their study by recommending a standardization of methods for conducting competency evaluations and writing reports.…”

“…The literature would suggest that this occurs less frequently than one would hope. While many studies have evaluated the quality and nature of forensic assessments and reports being completed in the United States (Heilbrun & Collins, 1995;Nicholson & Norwood, 2000;Robbins, Waters, & Herbert, 1997;Zapf et al, 2004) and some have suggested ways in which we might improve the quality of these evaluations (Otto & Heilbrun, 2002;, no studies were located that reported specific changes in practice that were made after deficits were found. While the lack of published research on the topic does not necessarily mean that no changes or improvements in clinical practice occurred, it does make one wonder whether or not they have.…”

Adjudicative Competence Evaluations of Juvenile and Adult Defendants: Judges' Views Regarding Essential Components of Competence Reports

“…Another possibility is that judges' ratings of the importance of various components of competence evaluations, including the lower ratings that they give to descriptive and explanatory information, may simply reflect the types of reports they have been exposed to. Competence evaluations often fail to describe functional legal capacities or links between legal capacities and psychopathology (Christy et al, 2004;Robbins et al, 1997;Zapf et al, 2004). Therefore, by failing to consistently include these components, judges may come to believe these descriptive components are not as essential.…”

“…Specifically, while most competence reports describe adult defendants' basic legal capacities, some types of legal capacities (e.g., decision-making capacities) are not routinely addressed in reports (Heilbrun & Collins, 1995;Robbins, Waters, & Herbert, 1997;Skeem, Golding, Cohn, & Berge, 1998;Zapf et al, 2004). Also, few adult competence reports document links between any observed deficits in legal capacities and psychopathology, and few reports include forensically-relevant testing (Borum & Grisso, 1995;Heilbrun & Collins, 1995;Robbins et al, 1997;. Although we know much less about juvenile competence evaluations, recent research has documented similar limitations in them (Christy, Douglas, Otto, & Petrila, 2004).…”