Competence to Stand Trial

Competence to Stand Trial

Being found competent to stand trial is a big deal. It means the court has decided you understand the charges against you and can participate in your defense. But what happens if you have a mental illness or intellectual disability that makes it hard to understand the court process? This article will explain competence to stand trial and what it means for defendants with mental disabilities.

What is Competence to Stand Trial?

Competence to stand trial means a defendant has a factual and rational understanding of the charges and court proceedings against them. They must be able to:

• Understand the roles of the judge, jury, prosecutor and defense attorney
• Understand the charges and potential sentences
• Appreciate the range of pleas available
• Disclose information relevant to their defense
• Make rational decisions about their case

If a defendant can’t do these things because of a mental disability, the court will find them incompetent to stand trial. This means the criminal proceedings will stop until the defendant gains competence through treatment.

Why is Competence Important?

The 1960 Supreme Court case Dusky v. United States established competence as a right under the U.S. Constitution. The Court said it violates due process to prosecute defendants who lack “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” and “a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.”

In other words, it’s unfair to prosecute someone who doesn’t understand what’s going on. The person can’t participate meaningfully in their defense. Competence protects a defendant’s constitutional rights.

How is Competence Evaluated?

If there are signs a defendant may be incompetent, the court will order a psychological evaluation. A forensic psychologist or psychiatrist will examine the defendant’s:

• Understanding of the charges and potential penalties
• Understanding of the court process and roles of court participants
• Ability to disclose pertinent facts to their attorney
• Ability to relate to their attorney
• Ability to plan legal strategy
• Ability to realistically appraise legal options

The evaluator will review the defendant’s psychiatric records and may interview family members. They will assess if a mental illness, intellectual disability, dementia, or other condition is impairing the person’s competence.

After completing the evaluation, the psychologist or psychiatrist will write a report opining whether the defendant is competent. All parties get to review the report. Then there will be a competence hearing where the judge decides if the person is fit to stand trial.

What Happens if a Defendant is Incompetent?

If the judge rules a defendant incompetent, the criminal case is put on hold. The person will be sent to a psychiatric facility for competency treatment and re-evaluation. Treatment usually involves medication and education about the legal process.

After a period of treatment, typically at least 60 days, the defendant will be re-evaluated. If they have regained competence, the criminal case can resume. If not, treatment and re-evaluation continues until competence is restored.

Some defendants never regain competence, for example if they have progressive dementia. For these individuals, the charges may ultimately be dismissed. However, the court can still commit them to a psychiatric hospital if they pose a danger to themselves or others.

Can a Defendant Fake Incompetence?

Malingering is when someone pretends to have a mental illness or cognitive impairment. Defendants may malinger incompetence to avoid prosecution. However, it can be difficult to consistently fake incompetence through psychological testing and observation over an extended hospital stay.

Evaluators are trained to detect malingering. Signs include:

• Refusing to answer certain questions but answering others requiring similar cognitive abilities
• Incorrectly answering questions that most people would know
• Exaggerated or inconsistent symptoms
• No objective evidence of cognitive impairment

If malingering is suspected, the evaluator may revise their opinion to competent. The court can also order more testing or treatment to assess the defendant’s true abilities.

Controversies Around Competence to Stand Trial

There is debate around competence to stand trial laws and policies. Some of the controversies include:

• Varying state standards – States have different definitions of competence. Some argue there should be a uniform national standard.
• Over-institutionalization – Critics argue too many defendants get sent to psychiatric hospitals indefinitely without being convicted of a crime.
• Restoring competence – There are concerns about forcibly medicating defendants to make them competent. This raises issues of personal autonomy and medical ethics.
• Lengthy hospitalization – Defendants are supposed to be hospitalized only for a “reasonable period” to regain competence. But some are confined for years with no trial in sight.

Balancing a defendant’s rights, public safety, and ethical treatment remains an ongoing challenge. The laws around competence continue evolving to address these issues.

The Bottom Line

Being competent to stand trial is not about intelligence – it’s about understanding. Defendants with mental disabilities may struggle to grasp the charges and court process. Competence evaluations aim to identify these individuals so their constitutional rights are protected.

Competence has been a legal right for decades. But applying this right in a fair way continues being refined. The law must balance protecting defendants, honoring ethical standards, and serving justice.

Have more questions about competence to stand trial? Reach out – I’m happy to chat more about this important issue.

References

• Dusky v. United States
• Treatment Advocacy Center
• Restoring Competency to Stand Trial
• Competence to Stand Trial Evaluations