Criminal Process: Competence to Proceed - Vocabulary Flashcards

A set of vocabulary-style flashcards covering core terms, standards, tests, cases, and concepts related to competence to proceed in criminal proceedings.

Adjudicative Competence

The capacity to understand and participate in court proceedings and to communicate with counsel, ensuring reliable and dignified adjudication.

Dusky Standard

The Supreme Court standard for adjudicative competence, requiring two core capabilities: understanding the proceedings and assisting counsel.

Two Prongs of Dusky

Capacity to understand the legal process and capacity to assist counsel (participate meaningfully in defense).

Decisional Competence

Ability to make informed choices in the criminal process, such as pleading guilty, waiving a jury trial, or raising defenses.

Competence to Proceed

Modern term for adjudicative competence, covering the entire adjudicative process beyond trial.

Adjudicative Proceedings

Guilty plea hearings, sentencing, parole, and probation revocation hearings—proceedings covered by adjudicative competence.

Forensic Assessment Instruments

Standardized tools (e.g., CST, GCCT, FIT-R, IFI, MacCAT-CA, ECST-R) used to evaluate adjudicative competence.

Competence Screening Test (CST)

22-item sentence-completion screening tool; score below cutoff prompts full evaluation; limited validity notes exist.

GCCT (Godinez Competence to Comprehend Trial)

Screening measure assessing understanding of trial-related knowledge; early screening instrument (GCCT and GCCT-MSH variants).

GCCT-MSH

Revised GCCT version used in some jurisdictions for screening competence to understand trial processes.

MacCAT-CA

MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Criminal Adjudication; 22-item semi-structured interview assessing Understanding, Reasoning, and Appreciation.

Understanding (MacCAT-CA)

Domain evaluating factual understanding of charges, procedures, and legal roles.

Reasoning (MacCAT-CA)

Domain assessing the ability to weigh options, foresee consequences, and reason about legal strategies.

Appreciation (MacCAT-CA)

Domain assessing recognition of how legal proceedings affect oneself and personal beliefs about the process.

ECST-R

Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial - Revised; comprehensive Dusky-based assessment with modules like Consult with Counsel, Factual Understanding, Rational Understanding, and feigning screening.

Consult with Counsel (ECST-R-CWC)

ECST-R component measuring perceived ability to consult with and understand counsel’s role and advice.

Factual Understanding (ECST-R-FAC)

ECST-R component assessing factual knowledge of charges and court procedures.

Rational Understanding (ECST-R-RAC)

ECST-R component assessing rational comprehension and capacity to reason about the case.

Atypical Presentation (ECST-R-ATP)

ECST-R subscale screening for unusual or atypical presentations that may affect competence judgments.

Feigning Screening (ECST-R)

ECST-R process to detect intentional deception or feigned incompetence.

FIT-R

Fitness Interview Test - Revised; 16 items, 30–45 minutes; assesses procedural knowledge and capability to participate, often with attorney involvement.

Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview (IFI)

Joint interview by mental health professional and attorney evaluating legal functioning and psychopathology.

CADCOMP

Computer-Assisted Defender Competence Screening; laptop-based 272-item self-report tool; criticized for validity and methodology.

CAST-MR

Competence Assessment for Standing Trial for individuals with Intellectual Disabilities; multiple-choice format tailored for ID populations.

Jackson v. Indiana (1972)

Supreme Court decision prohibiting indefinite confinement of incompetent defendants; requires restoration to competency or discharge.

Medina v. California (1992)

Supreme Court ruling addressing the burden and timing of competence determinations and due process considerations.

Pate v. Robinson

Established that courts must conduct a competency inquiry when there is a bona fide doubt about a defendant’s competence.

Riggins v. Nevada

Case holding that antipsychotic or other medications used to restore competence must not unduly infringe on the defendant’s rights or ability to participate.

Sell v. United States

Involuntary medication criteria: treatment must be medically appropriate, likely to restore competence, least restrictive, and not substantially impair trial rights.

Amnesia and Competence

Memory loss can complicate assessments of competence but does not automatically negate it; evaluations must consider memory effects on understanding.

United States v. Stubblefield

Case emphasizing the prosecution’s duty to assist with event reconstruction and comprehensive defense support in competence evaluations.

Andrews (Alternative Evaluation Factors)

Additional considerations in assessing competence: defense participation, amnesia permanence, reconstruction potential, access to government files, and prosecution case strength.

Roesch and Golding Trilemma

Legal dilemma: (1) try the defendant despite incompetence, (2) indefinite commitment, or (3) release without commitment.

Massachusetts Specialized Trial Procedure

Approach allowing limited trial opportunities for incompetent defendants, with possible dismissal if evidence is insufficient.

Restoration of Competence

Process of restoring a defendant’s competence to proceed; commonly results in resumed proceedings if successful.

Maximum Reasonable Treatment Period

Upper limit for restoration efforts (often about 6 months) before considering other dispositions.

Substantial Probability of Restoration

Threshold indicating treatment is likely to restore competence, guiding continued restoration efforts.

Involuntary Medication Criteria (Sell)

Conditions permitting involuntary medication to restore competence: therapeutic benefit, least rights-infringing method, and no trial-rights infringement.

Plea Bargaining Considerations

Grappling with how competence affects opportunities for plea deals and defense strategy while proceedings unfold.

ABA/APA/AAPL Ethical Guidelines for Evaluations

Professional ethical standards caution against evaluations without court order (AAPL/APA) and stress proper representation (ABA) and avoidance of unrepresented individuals.

Roesch–Golding Ethical and Procedural Considerations

Balancing defendant rights, judicial efficiency, and medical needs in competence assessments and referrals.

JACI (Juvenile Adjudicative Competence Interview)

Structured assessment tool for youths (often ages 11–24 in studies) focusing on developmental aspects of competence.

CAST-MR Limitations

Multiple-choice format for ID populations; may not fully capture true competence or real-world communication challenges.

Juvenile Competence (Grisso Findings)

Research showing developmental and cognitive factors in youths influence competence; younger defendants more likely to be impaired.

Grisso Findings (Developmental Competence)

Younger defendants (11–15) show higher impairment; lower IQ and limited education correlate with impairment.

Poythress Gender Findings

Research indicating competence-related abilities are similar across genders; psychosis more strongly linked to impairment than gender.

MacCAT-CA Domains Summary

Understanding (factual legal knowledge), Reasoning (decision-making in legal contexts), and Appreciation (awareness of personal legal situation).

ECST-R Scales Overview

CWC, FAC, RAC, ATP; plus feigning screening to support adjudicative judgments with Dusky criteria.

Pretrial Defendants Groups (HI/JT/JU)

Categories from studies comparing hospitalized incompetent, jail detainees with psychiatric treatment, and unscreened detainees.

Pate v. Robinson Emphasis

Judicial duty to inquire about competence whenever there is genuine doubt about the defendant’s ability to participate.

Malingering Detection (ATP/Feigning)

Screening for feigned incompetence to avoid false positives in competence judgments.

Diagnostic Flowchart (Competence)

Structured visual guides used in assessments to organize Dusky criteria and related factors.