competency to stand trial

Colin Ferguson case

Penn station, 19 injuries, 6 dead, 100 counts

-diagnosis of schizophrenia prior to incident, in and out of hospitals, “Long Island road sniper” denied responsibility, find competent to stand trial and self defend, started arguments on stand

Competency to stand trial

-make sure an individual is able to be a defendant

-aka competency to proceed

History of Competency to stand trial

“mute of malice” - didn’t understand what they did

“mute by visitation of God” - unable to participate due to mental illness “deaf, mute, or a lunatic” - unethical

Competency to stand trial evaluation help to provide:

1) Dignity - a sense of dignity, hope our courts are run in a dignified way

2) Moral Justice - constitution allows one to testify on their own behalf, what if mental illness holds them back?, protect rights of defendant

3) Accuracy- accuracy of the truth

“A system based on defending ones rights”

Mental Status Exam (MSE)

-1950s used to be if you could pass it you were competent to stand trial

-0 × 3 - oriented by 3

-oriented to person, place and time ex. where your from

Dusky v. US (1960) trial

Dusky was a 33 year old man with Schizophrenia- found competent to stand trial

-charged with rape/kidnapping

-never treated for his schizophrenia

-unable to tell his side of the story

-unable to consult with lawyer

-initially the burden was on Dusky - had to prove that he was incompetent rather than competent to the state- innocent until proven guilty

-moving beyond mental status exam

-45 years in prison

-after second trial sentenced to 20 years

Dusky vs. US

the case that set legal precedent for competency to stand trial. sometimes referred to as the Dusky Standard

What does the Dusky Standard say?

-A defendant must have sufficient present ability to consult with an attorney”

-”do they know what’s happening to them?”

Important things to know about competency to stand trial

-a present-focused, Here and now evaluation, based on the defendants current level of mental functioning, “how is this person doing? are they capable to be a defendant?

-based on capacity, not willingness, not to protect people who don’t want to help not capable to not willing

things to think about: language barrier, learning disability, intellectual disability ex. dimensia, mental illness, ex. schizophrenia

-the “relative threshold is not even high, around the understanding of a 6th grade level for passing the MSE.

-requires a disability/illness etc. AND an inability to be a defendant

-mere diagnosis is not enough, can still be found competent

who normally raises the issue of a CTS evaluation?

-the defense attorney, raises request, needs to protect rights of their client

-the prosecution to avoid appeal

-the judge

Drope vs. Missouri (1975)

set legal precedent that there are instances in which the judge has a responsibility to raise the question of CTS (competency to stand trial)

Drope vs. Missouri (1975) case

charged with SA wife and trafficking and other men financially SA

-passed competency, during trial became suicidal, bipolar symptoms became worse, judge let it continue which made him become incompetent

-responsibility to be gatekeeper of courtroom- judge

-found guilty

The evaluation

done by… psychologist (legal eval)

-remain impartial (don’t work for defense or prosecution or with the defendant)

-can be… impatient or outpatient

-right to a speedy trial, right to due process, (want it to happen quickly)

Who does not make the final decision?

the mental health professional

-they offer an “expert” opinion

this is a legal decision

what 3 important things need to be evaluated?

-mental status
-legal procedure

-communication with lawyer

if found competent, trial continues

what happens if the defendant is found incompetent of a MINOR CRIME?

-charges dropped - not worth it to legal system

-light sentence with treatment

what happens if the defendant is found incompetent of a MAJOR CRIME?

the goal is to restore competency

1) medication

2) therapy

3) education - legal education, we can teach them,

-try to mandate it clinically before meds

reevaluation

Jackson vs. Indiana (1972)

set precedent on the disposition of defendants that are never deemed competent to stand trial

Jackson vs. Indiana (1972) case

-deaf, mute, with an intellectual disability and robbed a store in rural indiana

-found incompetent twice and they let him stay in jail

-spent more time in jail than if he was found guilty

“if somebody is found not competent to stand trial they should serve time in a mental hospital for a reasonable amount of time”

“same time as stench they would have if they were found incompetent”

-only released with an exam to prove they are not a threat to themselves or others

-very rare, 8% of trials have a competency eval, of those 5% are never deemed competent

-high INTERRATABILITY - usually experts come to this conclusion