Competency to Stand Trial (CST)
Competency to Stand Trial (CST)
Definition and Importance
Competency to Stand Trial (CST): A legal standard regarding an individual’s capacity to understand and meaningfully participate in their criminal case.
Due Process Violation: It's a violation of an individual's right to due process, as protected by the Fifth Amendment, to subject them to a criminal trial without understanding what is transpiring.
Key Case - Dusky v. U.S.: Established the definition of CST, stating that:
The test must be whether the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with their attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.
Additionally, whether the defendant has a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against them (Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, p. 403).
Components of the Dusky Standard
The Dusky standard consists of two “prongs”:
Sufficient Present Ability: The ability to consult with an attorney and make decisions in their best interest (foundational and decisional competency).
Rational Understanding: Understanding the courtroom personnel, procedure, and the nature of the criminal charges faced.
Adjudicative Competency: Extends beyond just the ability to stand trial to include understanding of the legal process.
Key Considerations
Measure of Capacity: Competency assesses the defendant's ability, not their willingness. A defendant may refuse to cooperate with defense counsel without being deemed incompetent.
Present Capacity: Competency can fluctuate over time, particularly influenced by mental health status.
Mental Illness and Competency: Mental illness alone does not imply incompetence; it relates specifically to the ability to meet the Dusky criteria.
Presumption of Competency: Established through Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996) and Medina v. California (1992), which affirms that competency is presumed until proven otherwise.
Levels of Competency
Main focus on Competency to Stand Trial (CST) also includes:
Competency to Plead Guilty: The defendant's ability to understand proceedings and the consequences of pleading guilty, ensuring a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea.
Competency to Waive an Attorney: Defendants must understand the consequences of waiving their right to counsel if they opt to represent themselves (pro se).
Competency Assessment Procedures
If CST is questioned at any point prior to sentencing, the court mandates a competency evaluation conducted by qualified mental health professionals (requirements vary by state).
Judicial Determination: While the judge ultimately decides competency, its assessment is psychological in nature.
Discretion of Evaluators: There is no standard protocol or specific criteria beyond those outlined by Dusky, making it subjective and complex.
Judicial Reliance on Clinical Opinion: Research shows judges align with evaluators' clinical opinions over 80% of the time (Pirelli et al., 2014; Warren et al., 2016).
Forensic Assessment Instruments (FAI)
Purpose: FAIs are being developed to refine forensic evaluation methodology for competency assessments. Examples include:
Competency Screening Test
MacArthur Structured Assessment of the Competencies of Criminal Defendants
MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool–Criminal Adjudication
Advantages: FAIs are efficient, standardized, and provide objective measurements.
Disadvantages: They may not capture the complexities of individual cases, leading to possible misinterpretations. Hence, they are rarely used in standard assessments unless litigated during competency hearings.
Post-Evaluation Process
Following evaluation, mental health examiners will provide a clinical opinion in a report regarding the defendant's competency.
Evidentiary Standard: The standard for CST is the preponderance of the evidence, meaning the court must be over 50% certain of a defendant's incompetence to decide against proceeding with trial.
Burden of Proof in New York: It lies with the prosecution to prove that a defendant is competent to stand trial.
Consequence of Incompetency: If incompetency is not properly addressed, it may result in overturning subsequent convictions.
Outcomes of Assessments
If deemed competent, the trial proceeds as normal.
A finding of incompetency halts the criminal case progression.
Outcomes vary by state, with New York’s procedures being charge-dependent.
Disagreements over findings can lead to challenges, or efforts to controvert before a judge confirms the evaluation.
Expert Witnesses in Competency Hearings
If the findings are contested, the case may lead to a hearing.
Initial evaluators may be called to testify, and the opposing party can engage an independent expert for a second opinion.
Experts offer opinions without definitively labeling defendants as competent or incompetent, respecting the judicial nature of such determinations.
Malingering Competency
Malingering Definition: An intentional exaggeration or fabrication of symptoms aimed at achieving a favorable outcome or avoiding negative results (e.g., delayed trial or psychiatric treatment instead of incarceration).
Defendants may believe they can altogether avoid jail time by feigning incompetence.
Detection of Feigned Competency
Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial-Revised (ECST-R): An effective tool for assessing feigned incompetence.
Unique for including symptom validity measures that can detect feigning through “atypical presentation” (ATP) scales.
Complies with Daubert Standard for supporting evaluation error rates.
Limitations: Not validated for those with IQs <60; further research is warranted for validation.
Competency Considerations for Children
Developmental Issues: Youth facing criminal charges may lack competency to stand trial due to developmental and intellectual factors.
Defendants under 15 years or with disabilities are generally more likely to be deemed incompetent.
Recommendations for Evaluations: Advocated for those who are:
12 years old or younger,
Experiencing mental illness,
Having developmental or learning disabilities,
Showcasing low-borderline intelligence or deficits in key cognitive areas (e.g., memory, attention).
Research Findings on Juvenile Competence
A study by Grisso et al. (2003) analyzed 1,000 juvenile delinquents and young adults, revealing:
11 to 13 years old: 30% showed CST impairment; 50% might confess during police questioning; 75% willing to accept plea bargains.
14 to 15 years old: 20% exhibited CST impairment; 20% may confess during police questioning; 50% willing to accept plea bargains.
16 to 17 years old: 10% showed CST impairment; 20% confess; 50% plea acceptance.
Legal Framework in New York
In New York, CST is defined within Article 730 of the Criminal Procedure Law.
Terminology: Competency referred to as “fitness to proceed.”
Definitions:
“Fit”: A competent individual.
“Unfit”: An incompetent individual who cannot understand the proceedings or assist in their defense (CPL §730.10).
Definition of Mental Illness: As per NYS Mental Hygiene Law (MHL), it includes disturbances impairing behavior, thought, or judgment, necessitating care, treatment, and rehabilitation (MHL §1.03(20)).
Procedure of Article 730 Cases
Similar to typical CST procedures, a petition for a 730 exam can be filed if unfitness is suspected.
This results in evaluations by two qualified mental health professionals, with findings reported to the court.
If found fit, the case proceeds; if unfit, the progression stalls.
Handling Unfit Defendants
For Felony Cases: Defendants may undergo restoration (a treatment process) to regain fitness. They are committed to the Office of Mental Health for treatment until deemed fit again.
For Misdemeanor Cases: Findings of unfitness lead to dismissal of charges by law, and defendants receive a “Final Order of Observation” that can involve up to 90 days of treatment.
Legal Precedent: Ritter v. Surles (1988) justified that continued commitment is unconstitutional unless civil commitment standards are met, often resulting in shorter stays in practice.