Competence to Refuse an Insanity Defense and Other Mental Health Defenses

Introduction to Competence to Refuse an Insanity Defense

• This presentation examines how courts determine a defendant's ability to knowingly reject an insanity plea, aligning with the broader concept of decisional competence.

• It covers major legal approaches: Walch and Frendak.

• It discusses considerations for mental health evaluators when a defendant chooses to waive this defense.

• The information is primarily sourced from Melton and colleagues' 2018 text.

Decisional Competence Broadly Defined

• Definition: Melton defines decisional competence as the ability to:

  • Understand the nature and consequences of a specific legal choice.

  • Appreciate the relevant facts.

  • Make a knowing and voluntary decision.

• Purpose: It serves to:

  • Protect constitutional rights.

  • Limit the state's parental role when a person genuinely lacks capacity.

• Examples of Decisions Requiring Competence:

  • Consenting to a search.

  • Waiving self-incrimination rights.

  • Entering a plea (e.g., guilty plea).

  • Representing oneself in court (pro se).

  • Choosing whether to raise or refuse an insanity defense.

Competence to Refuse an Insanity Defense: A Subtype

• This is a specific form of decisional competence.

• Court's Determination: Courts must assess if a defendant declining an insanity plea has the capacity to:

  • Understand the defense itself.

  • Understand its potential consequences and alternatives.

  • Make a knowing and voluntary choice regarding the waiver.

• Illustrative Case: Ganes vs. Moran:

  • Moran was charged with multiple murders.

  • Found competent to stand trial.

  • Wanted to plead guilty and prevented his lawyers from presenting mitigating evidence.

  • Despite depression and medication, the court accepted his decision.

  • This case highlights the judicial balancing act between honoring defendant autonomy and safeguarding those making critical defense choices.

Legal Approaches to Refusing an Insanity Defense

• 1. The Wall Approach (Wall vs. United States, 1965):

  • Origin: DC Circuit Court.

  • Principle: If there is strong evidence suggesting the defendant lacks criminal responsibility due to serious mental illness, the judge is obligated to ensure an insanity defense is considered, even if the defendant objects.

  • Goal: To prevent the conviction of individuals who are morally blameless because of severe mental illness, thereby protecting society from potentially erroneous outcomes.

  • Current Status: Much less common today.

• 2. The Frendak Approach (Frendak vs. United States, ~1975):

  • Principle: Moved legal philosophy towards emphasizing defendant autonomy.

  • A competent defendant possesses the right to reject an insanity defense, provided the choice is:

    • Knowing.

    • Voluntary.

    • Rational.

  • Alignment: This view is consistent with other fundamental defendant rights, such as:

    • The ability to plead guilty while still asserting innocence (an Alford plea).

    • The right to self-representation in court.

  • Current Status: Most jurisdictions now follow the Frendak view.

Reasons for Refusing an Insanity Defense

• Melton and colleagues identify several reasons a defendant might reject an insanity defense, even when it could be successful:

  • Fear of a potentially longer involuntary commitment to a psychiatric hospital compared to a prison sentence.

  • Belief that correctional facilities offer superior treatment for their condition.

  • Stigma associated with being labeled as mentally ill.

  • Concern about the loss of civil rights that can accompany an insanity acquittal or finding of mental illness.

  • A desire for their actions to be interpreted as political or moral statements, rather than symptoms of a mental disorder.

Role of Forensic Evaluators

• Varying Roles by Jurisdiction:

  • In jurisdictions influenced by the Wall approach, evaluators may consider the strength of evidence for insanity even if the defendant objects.

  • In Frendak jurisdictions, the primary role is to assess the defendant's competence to waive the defense.

• Assessment Criteria for Competence to Waive:

  • Understanding: Does the defendant comprehend the insanity defense, its purpose, and its implications?

  • Voluntariness: Is the decision to waive freely made, without coercion?

  • Reasoning: Is the defendant's decision-making process logical and not unduly influenced by mental symptoms?

• Importance of Forensic Psychologists: They play a crucial role in these cases, providing expert reports.

• Content of Forensic Reports: Reports should describe:

  • The defendant's understanding of the insanity defense.

  • The defendant's appreciation of the risks and benefits of the defense and its waiver.

  • Whether mental symptoms interfere with the defendant's clear reasoning or judgment.

• Purpose of Reports: This guidance assists judges in determining the validity of the defendant's waiver, thereby ensuring fair proceedings and respecting individual autonomy.

Denial of Illness and Delusional Thinking

• According to Melton and colleagues, a rejection of an insanity plea may stem from:

  • A long-standing pattern of denying one's illness.

  • Delusional thinking that distorts perceptions of their situation or mental state.

• Evaluator's Task: In such cases, evaluators may need to examine the defendant's mental state at the time of the offense and ensure that the waiver is genuinely informed and voluntary.

Video Resource: "Understanding Insanity and Competency: My Criminal Defense"

• This short video, featuring a defense attorney, explains how courts manage the legal concepts of competency within the context of the insanity defense.

• It clarifies the critical importance of decisional competence before a defendant can either accept or refuse an insanity plea.

• Defendants must fully comprehend the meaning of the defense and the consequences associated with each available option.

Conclusion

• Competence to refuse an insanity defense is a specific application of decisional competence.

• It upholds a defendant's dignity and their right to determine their own defense strategy.

• Courts are only justified in intervening when a defendant demonstrably lacks the capacity to make such a decision.

• The Frendak view, emphasizing autonomy, is now prevalent in most jurisdictions, while the Wall approach is significantly less common.

Discussion Question

• Should judges or lawyers ever possess the authority to override a competent defendant's decision to reject an insanity or mitigation defense? Provide justifications for your answer.

Reference

• Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., Slobogin, C., Lyons, P. M., & Otto, R. K. (2018). Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers (4th ed.). Guilford Press.