Now see this? Forensic evaluator opinions regarding direct observation when evaluating competency to proceed.

Cox, Jennifer; Meaux, Lauren T.; Kois, Lauren E.; Jensen, Cassandra

doi:10.1037/pro0000395

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 37 publications

(61 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Defendants may be more forthcoming and willing to participate in the presence of their attorney. In addition, directly observing interactions between a defendant and their attorney can provide useful information for evaluators regarding the ability to consult with counsel (Cox et al, 2021; Melton et al, 2017). But these may not be key issues in most, or even many cases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors contributing to the delayed submission of competence to stand trial reports and the jail-based competency crisis in Washington.

Ricardo,

Boccaccini,

Raymond

et al. 2024

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, demand has outpaced capacity to provide timely competence to stand trial (CST) evaluations and subsequent restoration services. This outpacing of resources has been coined the “competency crisis” and led to class action lawsuits across the country aimed at improving the timeliness of jail-based competence evaluations and inpatient restoration services. This study examined rates of CST evaluation delays in Washington State and evaluator-cited barriers to timely report submission for jail-based CST evaluations. The study used data from N = 17,874 court-ordered jail-based CST evaluations and N = 1,739 Good Cause Exception (e.g., extension) requests submitted by forensic evaluators to local courts from June 2018 to November 2022. Results indicated the number of jail-based CST evaluations increased annually, as did the percentage of evaluations with an accompanying extension request. Although Washington evaluators could have asked for a Good Cause Exception in any case that appeared to be at risk for noncompliance, they did not always do so, with only one request submitted for every 2.36 noncompliant evaluations. When evaluators did submit an extension request, the most common reason cited for requesting extensions was “attorney” (42.5%) followed by “other” (34.2%) and “more information needed” (17.1%). Although the most frequently cited reason for delays may be unique to Washington (i.e., attorney presence for evaluations), it highlights the importance of jurisdiction-specific field studies to identify and reduce barriers to the timely completion of competence valuations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%