Assessing Competence to
Stand Trial
Ryan Hochel
Radford University
Competence
• Refers to a defendant’s capacity to
function meaningfully and knowingly in
a legal proceeding.
• Idea is that if someone cannot
understand the nature and purpose of
criminal proceedings, they should not
continue.
• Competence applies at every stage in
the criminal justice process, but is most
often raised in pretrial hearings.
• A defendant can be found competent
and still plead not guilty by reason of
insanity
Why is Competence Important?
• Defendants need to be able to understand
the charges against them so that they can
meaningfully participate in the criminal
justice system
• Punishment is only morally acceptable if
the people understand why they are being
punished
• The fairness and dignity of the adversary
system requires that defendants be able to
defend themselves against the charges
brought against them
Competence to Stand Trial
Dusky v. United States (1960)
• Defined as, “a sufficient present ability to
consult with one’s attorney with a
reasonable degree of rational understanding,
and . . . a rational, as well as factual
understanding of the legal proceedings
against him.”
Competent to Plead Guilty
• Requires that defendants:
– Understand the consequences of pleading
guilty
– Understand the alternatives they face
– Have the ability to make a reasoned choice
among the alternatives
• Most states use the Dusky standard in
determining competence to plead guilty.
• However, some psychologists believe a
separate standard should be applied.
Criminal Justice Mental Health
Standard
• Created as a compromise by the
American Bar Association in 1989
• No plea of guilty should be accepted
from a defendant who is mentally
incompetent
• A finding that a defendant is
competent to stand trial should be
sufficient to establish the defendant’s
competence to plead guilty
Criminal Justice Mental Health
Standard
• The test for determining mental competence to
plead guilty should be based on “whether the
defendant has sufficient present ability to
consult with the defendant’s lawyer with a
reasonable degree of rational understanding
and whether, given the nature and complexity
of the charges and the potential consequences
of conviction, the defendant has a rational as
well as factual understanding of the
proceedings relating to a plea of guilty.”
Adjudicative Competence
• Often used to replace competence to stand
trial and competence to plead guilty.
• Describes many abilities defendants must
possess in criminal legal proceedings.
• Two components
- foundational component
- decisional component
Foundational Competence
Three Requirements
1) The ability to understand the basic
elements of the adversary system
(prosecutor, judge, jury)
2) The ability to inform their attorney of
information relevant to the case
3) The ability to understand their situation as
a criminal defendant
Decisional Competence
Four Requirements
1) The ability to understand information
relevant to the decisions they must make
(pleading guilty, waiving a jury trial)
2) The ability to think rationally about
alternatives involved in the decisions
3) The ability to appreciate decisions that
need to be made in their best interest
4) The ability to make a choice among the
available defense strategies
Competence and Insanity
• They are not the same thing.
• A defendant may be found psychotic, mentally
ill, or mentally retarded but still competent
and able to stand trial.
• Competence only refers to their present
abilities, not their psychological state at the
time of the crime, as is the case with the
insanity defense.
Evaluating Competency
• After a competence examination is ordered
by a judge, a psychologist or psychiatrist
typically conducts the evaluation.
• Is concerned with the legal definition of
competence, not the psychological
definition.
• Pivotal question is if a mental illness is
present, does is impair the defendant’s
ability to participate in legal proceedings in
a meaningful way and cooperate with their
attorney?
Evaluating Competency
• Depends on the case:
- Competence standards may be
less strict in a straightforward case.
- Standards are typically more
stringent in a complex trial.
• Most common way of evaluating
competence is through various
psychological tests.
Tests Used to Evaluate
Competence
Tests Used to Evaluate
Competence
Competency Screening Test (CST)
• 22 item sentence completion test
• Often used as initial screening tool
• Scores range from 2 (competent answer) to
0 (incompetent answer)
• Scores less than 20 suggest possible
incompetence to stand trial
Tests Used to Evaluate
Competence
Competency Screening Test (CST)
• Criticized for having an extremely positive
view of the legal process.
• Produces large number of false positives,
labeling defendants who are competent as
incompetent.
• Has high interrater reliability and internal
consistency with rater training
Tests Used to Evaluate
Competence
Competency Screening Test (CST)
• Examples
- When I go to court, the lawyer will:
- The way a court trial is decided:
- If the jury finds me guilty, I:
- While listening to the witnesses testify
against me:
- When the jury hears my case, they will:
Tests Used to Evaluate
Competence
Competency Assessment Instrument
(CAI)
• A structured one hour interview that assesses 13
functions relevant to competency for standing trial
• Scores range from 1 (total incapacity) to 5 (total
capacity), Concerned if several scores are 3 or less
• Shown to have 90% agreement with competency
decisions made after extensive hospital
evaluations.
Tests Used to Evaluate
Competence
Competency Assessment Instrument
(CAI)
• Example
- Appraisal of role of: defense counsel,
prosecuting attorney, judge, jury, defendant,
witnesses.
- The defendant should be able to identify
the basic role of each of these players. For
example: the prosecutor as foe, defense
attorney as friend, judge as neutral, and the
jury as the deciders of guilt or innocence.
Tests Used to Evaluate Competence
Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview (IFI)
• Semi-structured interview
• 5 items assessing the defendant’s abilities in
specific legal areas
• Evaluates 11 categories of psychopathological
symptoms
• Rated from 0 to 2 describing the degree of
capacity demonstrated
• Each item is assigned the weight it played in
determining overall competence
Tests Used to Evaluate Competence
Georgia Court Competency Test
(GCCT)
• 21 items that represent three dimensions
• General courtroom knowledge (Example:
the jobs of the judge and lawyer)
• Courtroom layout (Example: where the
judge and jury are located in a courtroom)
• Specific legal knowledge (Example: how to
interact with defense counsel)
Tests Used to Evaluate Competence
Georgia Court Competency Test
(GCCT)
• Isn’t as good as measuring non-cognitive
abilities such as ability to cooperate
• Is significantly correlated with a number of
independent competency measures
Tests Used to Evaluate Competence
MacArthur Competence Assessment ToolCriminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA)
• Contains hypothetical situations that the
defendant has to comment on
• Includes information on four abilities
- understanding charges and trails
- appreciation of relevant information
- reasoning with information during decision
making
- making a choice
Competency Evaluations
• 30, 000 defendants are evaluated each year
to determine if they are IST.
• About 70% of defendants evaluated are
found competent to stand trial.
• Defense attorneys question their clients’
competence in 15% of felony cases
(compared to half that in misdemeanor
cases).
• For every 1 defendant a jury finds not guilty
by reason of insanity, 100 are found
incompetent to stand trial.
Characteristics of those found
Incompetent
•
•
•
•
•
Usually single males
Minorities
Low levels of education and intelligence
Unemployed
Previous involvement in legal and mental
health systems
• Exhibits symptoms of current serious mental
disorder
• Charged with more serious crimes
After the Evaluation
Competent to Stand Trial
• Defendants who found to be competent
proceed to trial.
• If the crime is not serious the charges may
be dropped for those found incompetent.
After the Evaluation
Incompetent to Stand Trial
• Defendants who were found IST typically go to a
mental health institution.
• At the institution they are treated for restoration of
competence.
• If the treatment to restore competence is successful,
the defendant will then stand trial.
• If it is determined that competence may never be
restored, many defendants remain in mental health
institutions despite a law prohibiting indefinite
confinement (Jackson v. Indiana, 1972).
After the Evaluation
Incompetent to Stand Trial
• Many states limit restoration treatment to 6 months
to 1 year.
• Permanently incompetent defendants could be
committed to a hospital through involuntary civil
commitment proceedings.
• An alternative suggested by ABA is to have a
provisional trial. If found not guilty, the defendant
is acquitted, if found guilty, he or she would be
subject to some special type of commitment where
they would be securely handled.
How is Competence Restored?
• Usually through psychoactive medication
• Defendants who received treatment involving videos
and instructions on courtroom procedures in addition
to medication were found more likely to be
competent (43%) upon re-evaluation than those only
receiving medication (15%) (Siegel & Elwork, 1990).
Other Competence Issues
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Competence to confess
Competence to waive the right to an attorney
Competence to refuse the insanity defense
Competence to be sentenced and punished
Competence of juveniles
Competence with medication, incompetent without
Amnesia and competence
Case Study
Competent or Not?
The Case of Jamie Sullivan
• Sullivan was a 24 year old store clerk
charged with arson, burglary, and murder.
• He was mentally retarded with an IQ
between 65 and 68.
• His attorney thought he might be
incompetent to stand trial, so he was
examined by a psychologist.
Psychologist’s Interview with
Sullivan
Q. What are you charged with?
A. Burning down that store and stealing from
Ricky (the store owner who was killed in the
fire)
Q. Anything else?
A. They say I killed Ricky too.
Q. What could happen to you if a jury found you
guilty?
A. Electric chair, but God will watch over me.
Psychologist’s Interview with
Sullivan
Q. What does the judge do at a trial?
• He tells everybody what to do.
Q. If somebody told a lie about you in court,
what would you do?
A. Get mad at him
Q. Anything else?
A. Tell my lawyer the truth.
Psychologist’s Interview with
Sullivan
Q. What does your lawyer do if you have a
trial?
A. Show the jury I’m innocent.
Q. How could he do that best?
A. Ask questions and have me tell them I
wouldn’t hurt Ricky. I liked Ricky.
Psychologist’s Interview with
Sullivan
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
What does the prosecutor do in your trial?
Try to get me found guilty.
Who decides if you are guilty or not?
That jury.
Sullivan’s Competency Results
• Sullivan’s mental retardation limited his
understanding of the proceedings.
• However, he did understand the nature of the
charges against him, he could assist his
attorney, and he understood the general
purpose and nature of the trial.
• He was found competent to stand trial.
• He was convicted on all charges.
• He was sentenced to life in prison.