Fitness to Stand Trial Evaluations: A Comparison of Referred and Non-Referred Defendants

Viljoen, Jodi L.; Zapf, Patricia A.

doi:10.1080/14999013.2002.10471168

Cited by 20 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because courts have often applied adult standards of competence to adolescents, adolescents were classified as impaired based on their performance relative to adults rather than using an absolute cut-off of impairment. We classified an adolescent as impaired (by adult norms) on a legal measure if his or her score fell two or more standard deviations below the mean for adults presumed to be competent (Grisso, 1998;Viljoen & Zapf, 2002). 4 This cut-off was chosen because it was consistent with cut-offs used by similar studies (e.g.…”

Section: Cut-off Scoresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adjudicative competence and comprehension of Miranda rights in adolescent defendants: a comparison of legal standards

Viljoen

Zapf

Roesch

2007

Behavioral Sci & The Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently, there is considerable variability and ambiguity in legal standards pertaining to juveniles' comprehension of Miranda rights and their adjudicative competence. This study investigated rates of impairment under various proposed legal standards. One hundred and fifty-two young defendants aged 11-17 were assessed with Grisso's Miranda Instruments and the Fitness Interview Test-Revised. While over half of defendants aged 15 and under were classified as impaired in adjudicative capacities when adult norms were applied, significantly fewer adolescents were classified as impaired when adolescent norms were applied or a standard of "basic understanding and communication." Also, while over half of defendants aged 15 and under were classified as impaired in their comprehension of Miranda rights when both understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights were required, significantly fewer youth were classified as being impaired when only understanding was required. The implications of these findings are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Cut-off Scoresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adjudicative competence and comprehension of Miranda rights in adolescent defendants: a comparison of legal standards

Viljoen

Zapf

Roesch

2007

Behavioral Sci & The Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Viljoen and Zapf () compared Canadian defendants who had and had not been referred for AC evaluations. In contrast to previous studies, they found that referred defendants were more likely than non‐referred defendants to be charged with violent offenses.…”

Section: Systemic Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies found that, compared with competent defendants, defendants who were found incompetent by courts were more likely to be diagnosed with a psychotic disorder (e.g., schizophrenia, delusional disorder; Caldwell, Mandracchia, Ross, & Silver, ; Cooper & Zapf, ; Cox & Zapf, ; James, Duffield, Blizard, & Hamilton, ; Viljoen et al, ; Viljoen & Zapf, ). For example, in a sample of 468 Alabama defendants, Cooper and Zapf () found that defendants diagnosed with a psychotic disorder were five times more likely to be judged incompetent.…”

Section: Empirical Correlates Of Ac Judgments and Psycholegal Abilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ten Year Research Update (2001–2010): Evaluations for Competence to Stand Trial (Adjudicative Competence)

Fogel

Schiffman

Mumley

et al. 2013

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews and evaluates publications during 2001-2010 with relevance for assessments of competence to stand trial, referred to in this article as adjudicative competence. The review focuses specifically on articles that provide new concepts or data supported by research or case analyses. The studies are reviewed under the following headings: (i) systemic issues, (ii) conceptual guidelines for AC evaluations, (iii) AC assessment methods, (iv) empirical correlates of AC judgments and psycholegal abilities, (v) quality of AC evaluations and reports, (vi) interpretive issues, (vii) special populations (defendants who are elderly, defendants with intellectual disabilities), (viii) AC evaluations of juveniles, and (ix) treatment of incompetent defendants. Suggestions are offered for further research to advance the quality of clinical evaluations of adjudicative competence.

show abstract

“…We suspect that these data reflect two prominent reasons for referral for forensic psychiatric evaluation, whereby defendants are referred for evaluation either because they appear to have psychotic features or because they claim amnesia for the offense (perhaps in the presence of other identifiable, but nonpsychotic, mental health problems). It has been shown that defendants with a psychotic disorder are much more likely to be referred for pretrial evaluation of competence (47). At the same time, there is parallel evidence that a claim of offense amnesia is also likely to trigger referrals for mental examination (2,7).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Claims of Amnesia for Criminal Offenses: Psychopathology, Substance Abuse, and Malingering

Stout

Farooque

2008

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The forensic psychiatric examiner often encounters defendants who deny memory for their offense. Past research proposes a variety of factors to account for offense amnesia. To date there have been few systematic studies of offense amnesia in relation to psychiatric diagnosis, either alone or in combination with other known factors such as substance use and malingering. We studied 53 pretrial felony defendants who had been referred for psychiatric examination; 40% claimed amnesia for their offense. Examinees with psychotic disorders in general, and schizophrenia in particular, were relatively less likely to claim amnesia than were examinees with other diagnoses. Substance use at the time of the offense and associated substance use disorder diagnoses were positively associated with offense amnesia. Malingering diagnosed by general clinical criteria was a poor predictor of amnesia claims. These data suggests that two prominent reasons for referral for forensic psychiatric evaluation include the presence of psychotic symptoms and claims of amnesia for the offense.

show abstract

Fitness to Stand Trial Evaluations: A Comparison of Referred and Non-Referred Defendants

Cited by 20 publications

References 56 publications

Adjudicative competence and comprehension of Miranda rights in adolescent defendants: a comparison of legal standards

Adjudicative competence and comprehension of Miranda rights in adolescent defendants: a comparison of legal standards

Ten Year Research Update (2001–2010): Evaluations for Competence to Stand Trial (Adjudicative Competence)

Claims of Amnesia for Criminal Offenses: Psychopathology, Substance Abuse, and Malingering

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About