Competency to stand trial - Research Paper Example

Competency to Stand Trial Introduction The competency to stand trial has been described as the most important mental health analysis in the criminal law system. According to Poythress, Nicholson and Otto (1999), an estimated 5% of all cases are plagued by competency issues but however only 66% of these cases are subjected to competency evaluations. Over the years, the frequency of competency evaluations has increased in the United States. By 2000, about 25% of suspects referred to competency evaluations were adjudicated incompetent to stand trial (Nicholson & Johnson, 1991). Each defendant should be able to help in assisting their defence while also participating in the legal procedures. It is therefore important for all defendants to have a good understanding of what is happening in a legal process as well as the options presented to him/her in the duration of a case. This paper seeks to understand the concept of “competency to stand trial” in the legal sense. The paper will look at various literatures on the subject as well as the different application of the term. The paper will also look at the characteristics that signify competency and those that show or alert court officials that a defendant may be incompetent. Apart from these we shall look at different incompetency areas such as adolescents. Finally, the paper shall look at the tests and techniques for determining incompetency and finally we shall look at some of the major cases with possible incompetent defendants that have been judged in the country. Legal Definition of Competency Competency to stand trial is a legal construct founded on the prohibition of the English common law against trials in absentia. It is a legal construct that denotes the ability of a defendant to participate in legal proceedings for an alleged crime. Wulach (1980) delineated four legal reasons for only dealing with competent individuals during a given case. The first reason is that the accuracy of the legal proceedings is dependent on the assistance of the defendant in acquiring the case facts. Secondly, due process is dependent on the ability of the defendant to exercise their legal rights, including testifying, choosing their legal representatives and confronting their accusers. The third reason is that an incompetent defendant undermines the dignity and integrity of any legal process. And finally, the main purpose of punishment will not be achieved if the individual being sentenced is unable to understand the sanction or the reason why a given sentenced has been imposed. Legally, competence was first defined in court by the landmark case Dusky v. United States., 362 U.S. 402 (1960). This landmark case established the minimal constitutional requirements for adjudicative competence. In order for a criminal case to be carried out, a defendant should have sufficient ability to consult with his lawyer with a sound degree of rational understanding and be able to comprehend the proceedings of the court (McGarry, 1973). The Dusky Standard was operationalized in 1961 when it was used in Wieter v. Settle case. In this case, several fictional elements of competency to stand trial were developed and they include (Otto, 2006): i. The defendant has the mental capacity to understand where he is in relation to place, time and things ii. The defendant’s elemental mental processes are such that he grasps that he is charged with a criminal offence in a Court of Law. iii. The defendant should be able to realize and understand that there is a judge on the bench iv. He should also realize that there is a prosecutor whose job is to convict him of the charge v. He should realize that he has a lawyer (either court appointed or self-employed) whose main purpose is to defend him against the charges vi. The defendant should understand that he is expected to explain to his lawyer, to the best of his mental capacity, the details surrounding him at the time and place in which the crime was being committed. vii. The defendant should also understand that his case will be decided by a jury based on the evidence presented as to his innocence or guilt. Competence to waive rights and Competence to plead guilty Whitebread and Slobogin (2000) contend that over 90% of all cases in the United States are resolved by a plea of guilty which by itself contains a waiver of several vital rights that includes rights of being tried by a jury, the right to confront the accusers, and the right to avoid self-incrimination. However, the competency to stand trial and the competency to plead guilty are not one and the same. The U.S. court of Appeals, in Sieling v. Eyman (1973) adopted a standard that differentiate these two types of competencies and held that: a defendant lacks the competency to plead guilty if his mental faculties are significantly compromised in such a way that he cannot make a reasoned choice of alternatives afforded to him and he lacks the basic understanding of what he is pleading to. According to Ryba and Zapf (2011), a defendant’s competence to waive rights to counsel was determined in Godinez v. Moran (1993) in which the United States Supreme Court passed that the competency to stand trial implies the competency to waive counsel and enter a plea. Stafford and Sadoff (2011) support this statement and further argue that case law holds that competency to stand trial encompasses the ability of a defendant to make several important decisions inherent to resolving a case in a just, accurate and fair manner. During the Godinez v. Moran case, the courts held that in addition to establishing that a defendant seeking to waive rights for counsel and to plead guilty is competent, the court must also ensure that the waiver is voluntary and knowing. Thus, Dusky standard should not be taken too narrowly when determining the competency to waive counsel and the competency to plead guilty. Melton et al. (2007) however holds that courts should heighten the level of competency to trial as this translates to the competency to waive rights. Incompetent Defendants All courts in the U.S. may at times require a defendant to undergo a psychological evaluation as a prelude to his competence to stand trial hearing. The psychological evaluations however may go against the Fifth Amendment right of a defendant that protects against self-incrimination. The courts thus have to decide whether or not to use information from these evaluations in the actual hearing. The law that deals with how incompetent defendants are treated seeks to balance liberty interest and due process issues of a defendant not yet convicted of a crime with the interest of the State for a fair and just criminal case process (Melton et al. 2007). In some cases, involuntary treatment is permissible provided the treatment has a good chance of restoring the defendant’s competence. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Jackson v. Indiana, passed that a defendant charged with a criminal offence and who is committed due to incompetence for trial can only be held for only the required time to prove his incompetence and to retain competency for the trial. Apart from involuntary confinement, a Court can decide a course of treatment for the defendant. In Sell v. United States (2003), The U.S. Supreme Court held that before a defendant is forced to take medication so as to regain competence, the courts should take into account all other reasons for ordering involuntary medication, such as avoiding self-harm, prevention of dangerous behavior etc. Competency to stand trial and ultimate issue expert testimony The competency to stand trial is a legal aspect and as such becomes noted by an attorney first. An attorney, after noticing signs of incompetence, chooses whether or not to involve clinical experts in the given case. An ultimate issue is a legal issue that requires an expert of a particular field to offer testimony based on given facts (Roesch, Eaves & Sollner, 1989). In terms of competency for trial, an ultimate issue may deal with the defendant’s mental state and whether competence can be resolved in a timely man. In the past, Ultimate issue was used a lot in case, however, most courts have enacted very specific rules that disqualify the opinions of experts in their testimonies. The evaluation of the competence of a defendant is however usually dependent on ultimate issue. A manual outlining the five vital objectives of a competency evaluation was developed in 1988 by Grisso. According to Grisso (2003), the objectives include: i. An assessment of the defendant’s strength and weaknesses when concerning specific legal abilities (functional level) ii. Credible observations, based on clinical analysis, on identifiable deficits (Causal analysis) iii. An assessment of the impacts posed by observed deficits on the demands specific to the case iv. An assessment whether or not the legal issue about the competency o the defendant to stand trial (conclusive level) v. An assessment on the chances for remediation and any treatment recommendations that can be applied (prescriptive level) Characteristics of incompetent defendants There are very many competency evaluation tests that have been devised over the years. Some of these include: competency screening test, Mac-Arthur competency assessment, interdisciplinary fitness interview, Georgia court competency test, CADCOMP, and CAST-MR (Grisso, 2003). While these competency tests concentrate on the functional features of competency, they do not look at what contributes to a defendant being incompetent to stand trial. For this, psychological evaluations are very important. Some of the common characteristics common to incompetent defendants include: i. Mental retardation ii. Cognitive defects arising due to dementia, brain illnesses, or traumatic brain injuries iii. Psychosis and mood disorders iv. Amnesia Adolescent incompetence to Stand Trial Adolescents cannot be taken as just smaller versions of adults, both cognitively and emotionally. Over the years, researchers have found out that children under the age of 14 years lack the competency to stand trial. These study argue that delinquents under the age of 14 years usually have clinical impairments in functioning or are clinically impaired thus are largely incompetent to stand trial (Ficke, Hart & Deardorff, 2006). Other studies have shown that delinquents under the age of 16 usually have low IQs and learning disabilities that affect cognitive abilities. Adolescents also have developmental immaturity that leads them to have naïve views about the world. Developmental factors also influence adolescents such as attitudes towards authority, impulsiveness, maturity of judgement and risk taking (Grisso, Steinberg & Woorland, 2003). Studies have also shown that adolescent delinquents have high rates of mental health problems. These children suffer from stress due to possible abuse, psychosis, or some other cognitive disability. It has been shown that although a child may have passed through the court system at a previous time in their lives, they usually do not pick up a lot of information about the legal system or what is required in a legal case thus affecting their competence. Restoration of competency It has been noted that mental retardation and psychosis are the most cases of incompetence to stand trial. As such, various procedures to restore competence have been developed. After assessing the competence of defendants, courts usually send these individuals to psychiatric hospitals for restoration. The restoration includes involuntary or voluntary treatment, and education geared at enabling the defendant to proceed with the case. Some defendants have never been competent and thus the courts usually send them to competence creating centres or habilitation (Franklin & Bordenave, 2010). Right to refuse treatment and competency to stand trial As noted above, the courts usually send incompetent defendants to rehabilitation centres or psychiatric hospitals for restoration. Once a court finds that a defendant is incompetent, the court develops a course of action that is beneficial to both sides (Otto, 2006). A defendant who has been found incompetent cannot proceed to trial as he is and has to seek treatment. The right to refuse treatment is therefore counter-productive to the restoration of competency and thus goes against the mandate of the court. A defendant can choose to refuse certain treatment courses with ample proof and reasons for his refusal but no defendant can completely refuse restoration treatment procedures selected by the court. Important Cases of Incompetency Over the years, several individuals have been executed despite being suspected of being mentally ill. This paper will look at several cases of mentally impaired defendants executed in the United States. The first defendant we look at is John Fergusson. Fergusson was executed on 5th August 2013 for the mass murder of 8 people (Franklin & Bordenave, 2010). Fergusson was found to be suffering from extreme mental illnesses, mainly schizophrenia. He suffered from major hallucinations and was sent to a psychiatric institution where his diagnosis of schizophrenia was made. In 1975, he was institutionalized after a clinical expert argued that he was too violent and cannot be released to the public. However, he was released a year later and began his rampage. Fergusson thought himself the son of God and that his execution will save people of the earth. The court undertook the sentence as they claimed Fergusson understood why he was being executed i.e. killing eight people. His attorneys however argued that the Florida courts adopted a very stingy view on what is understood by competency for execution that they offer no leeway for those who are mentally retarded. Another case is that of power v. State of Florida 992 So.2d 218 (Fla. 2008). In this case, Robert Power was convicted of sexual battery, kidnapping and the first degree murder of a thirteen year old girl. He was convicted and sentenced to the death penalty. He later appealed this conviction on the basis of an on-going mental illness. The court however denied his appeal by citing that his mental illness does not exempt him from execution. The court also argues that the U.S. Supreme court does not recognize mental illness as a cause for automatic exemption from execution. Conclusion Competency for standing trial is a legal aspect that looks at the ability for a defendant to stand trial as well as understand the repercussions of events happening during the trial. The competency to stand trial has been studied by many experts but still causes various arguments among the legal professionals. There are several characteristics of incompetent defendants which can be evaluated through the use of several analysis tools that have been developed. Defendants who are incompetent are those suffering from mental illnesses, psychosis, cognitive defects such as amnesia and juveniles. Incompetent defendants are usually sent to psychiatric hospitals for restoration after which trial can resume. The competency to stand trial holds many aspects such as competency to waive rights and competency to plead guilty. However, an incompetent defendant cannot refuse treatment as this is stems from a given mental capability not attributed to them. References Dusky v. United States, 362 US 402 (1960). Ficke S., Hart K. & Deardorff P., (2006). The performance of incarcerated juveniles on the MacArthur competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA). J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 34:360–363 Franklin, J. & Bordenave, M. (2010). Death Penalty and Mentally ill Defendants. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 38(2): 284-286 Grisso T. (2003). Evaluating Competencies: Forensic Assessments and Instruments (2nd ed.). New York: Plenum Press Grisso T., Steinberg L., & Woolard J., (2003). Juveniles’ competence to stand trial: a comparison of adolescents’ and adults’ capacities as trial defendants. Law and Human Behavior 27: 333-363 McGarry A. (1973). Competency to Stand Trial and Mental Illness. Washington, DC: National Institute of Mental Health Melton, G., Petrila, J., Poythress, N., & Slobogin, C. (2007). Psychological Evaluations for the Courts (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Nicholson, R., & Johnson, W. (1991). Prediction of competency to stand trial: Contribution of demographics, type of offense, clinical characteristics and psycho-legal ability. International Journal of Law Psychiatry, 14, 287–297. Otto, R. K. (2006). Competency to stand trial. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2(3): 82- 113. Power v. State of Florida 992 So.2d 218 (Fla. 2008) Poythress, N., Nicholson, R. & Otto, R. (1999). The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool— Criminal Adjudication: Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Roesch R, Eaves D. & Sollner R. (1989) Evaluating fitness to stand trial: a comparative analysis of fit and unfit defendants. International Journal of Law Psychiatry 4: 145–157 Ryba, N. L., & Zapf, P. A. (2011). The influence of psychiatric symptoms and cognitive abilities on competence-related abilities. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 10: 29–40. Stafford, K. P., & Sadoff, R. L (2011). Competence to stand trial. In E. Y. Drogin, F. M. Dattilio, R. L. Sadoff, & T. G. Gutheil (Eds.), Handbook of forensic assessment: Psychological and psychiatric perspectives. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Whitebread, C., & Slobogin, C. (2000). Criminal procedure: An analysis of cases and concepts, 12.02, 12.04 (4th ed.). Washington DC: Foundation Press. Wulach, J. S. (1980). The incompetency plea: Abuses and reforms. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 8, 317–328. Read More