Mental Health Evaluation Federal Court.

In federal court, a mental-health evaluation may be used to address one or more of several distinct and often-confusing legal questions. For example, one legal question is whether the defendant is “competent” to stand trial. This question focuses on the defendant’s present ability to understand the proceedings against them and to assist their counsel in preparing their defense. Another legal question is whether the defendant is legally “insane,” also known as “insanity.” This question focuses on the defendant’s mental condition when the alleged offense occurred.

As a result, federal courts frequently see situations where:

• A defendant was legally insane when they allegedly committed the offense and, as a result, is entitled to not be held criminally responsible. However, by the time of their trial, the defendant’s condition has improved such that they are competent to stand trial.
• A defendant was legally sane when they allegedly committed the offense, but their mental health has deteriorated since then to the extent that they are no longer competent to stand trial.

Because these are two very different legal questions, the tests used to answer each are quite different. They are also not subject to any universal rules; for example, no “three-month” rule applies across the board.

In fact, federal criminal cases can involve issues including, but not limited to:

• Competency
• Insanity
• Criminal intent
• Sentencing mitigation and ability to commit themselves to treatment
• Criminal liability (whether an act is voluntary or involuntary)
• Eligibility for diversion
• Other issues such as suitability for probation, probation officer supervision, or a medical or mental-health treatment program

As a result, when you speak to your attorney about a federal evaluation, a court-ordered psychiatric or psychological evaluation, or any of the other terms mentioned above, it is important to clarify exactly what is being decided, as the evaluation could be seeking to uncover any of the above issues. It is important to clarify that a court-ordered evaluation is not, by itself, a finding of incompetency or insanity. It is merely an order that the defendant undergo evaluation with the purpose of providing the court with necessary information to make informed decisions about how to proceed.

Finally, it is important to recognize the difference between psychological evaluations, psychiatric evaluations, competency examinations, and civil commitment hearings. These are all mental-health evaluations, but they address different legal questions and serve very different legal purposes. While in a criminal case they are meant to determine if you are mentally ill, and if your mental illness means that you are not legally responsible, the goals in civil commitment hearings are very different and often even more subjective.

Why Is There No Federal Three-Month Evaluation Rule?

As explained above, federal law provides specific time limits for some court-ordered mental-health examinations and competency-related hospitalization, but it does not impose a nationwide three-month mental-health evaluation rule. While California law generally provides that a felony defendant who has not regained competency must be returned to court at the end of two years of commitment, or sooner if the maximum term for the most serious charged offense is shorter, this is not a federal rule. Indeed, evaluations in federal court are governed by federal standards. These standards are not merely state procedures, and their application will vary depending on the specific legal questions involved and the particular circumstances of the case at hand.

If you are worried about facing long-term commitment in a mental health facility, you should be mindful of your attorney’s specific advice, as different rules and procedures may apply. However, these procedures are not the same across all mental-health evaluations, and they do not serve as substitutes for the relevant federal law in a federal criminal trial.

Given how often mental-health evaluations lead to unnecessary confusion and misconceptions, you should make sure you fully understand:

• Why your evaluation is being ordered,
• The legal standard being used to make its determinations,
• The purpose of the psychiatric or psychological questions you are being asked,
• Your attorney’s plan for using (or fighting) the evaluation results, and,
• Your options for challenging the findings.

At Spodek Law Group, we advise individuals charged under federal law who require mental-health evaluations. To learn more about how we can protect your rights and what your options are if you are facing an evaluation, we invite you to schedule a free and confidential consultation. Our attorneys can quickly review your case and answer any questions you have.

If any of this describes your situation, it is worth talking through with counsel. Spodek Law Group can be reached at 888 348 8028.

When May a Federal Court Order an Evaluation, and What Happens Next?

Federal courts may order a defendant to undergo a mental health evaluation if incompetency appears to be a genuine issue. This may happen before a trial, perhaps as a result of the defendant’s (or their attorney’s) request or a notice of intent to rely on an insanity defense. It may also be initiated by the attorney for the Government or on the court’s own motion.

When a federal court orders an evaluation, the evaluator may conduct interviews, administer psychological tests, review medical records, and employ other forms of assessment. The results are then presented in the form of a report that states findings, opinions, and conclusions about the defendant’s mental functioning, all as they pertain to the specific legal issues at hand. Criminal mental-health evaluations are commonly performed by both psychiatrists and psychologists, both of whom may testify to the extent that their evaluations go into issue at trial.

All types of mental-health evaluations, whether psychological, psychiatric, or competency-related, seek to gauge cognition, comprehension, psychiatric history, and behavioral functioning. Generally, however, evaluations are more likely to focus on cognition, comprehension, and psychiatric history if the legal issue at hand is incompetency or insanity, and they are more likely to focus on behavioral functioning if the issue is one involving criminal responsibility.

As a result, when a defendant is found to be incompetent to stand trial, the trial is delayed, and the defendant may be committed to a mental health treatment institution. At that point, the purpose of the competency determination shifts from allowing the trial to proceed to restoration. This means that treatment is intended to address whatever condition prevents the defendant from standing trial. In turn, the facility submits periodic reports to the court; if the court still finds the defendant incompetent, treatment may continue. The defendant remains unable to proceed unless and until the court determines, after a competency hearing, that treatment has restored the capacity to allow the proceedings to go forward.

All of this has the potential to significantly delay the trial process, and it has the potential to confuse the defendant and the jury about what the defendant’s mental illness actually means in a legal context. For this reason, you should work closely with your attorney throughout the process. Your attorney should use the results of any court-ordered evaluation for your benefit, which could mean challenging a finding of incompetency, rather than accepting whatever results the government’s evaluator reports to the court.

Why Are Federal Mental-Health Defenses So Difficult to Prove?

While mental-health evidence is admissible in criminal trials, it is not necessarily admissible to show that the defendant lacks criminal responsibility, and mental-health defenses are often difficult to prove for this reason. Mental-health evidence may simply be relevant to sentencing mitigation, and it may be relevant to a crime’s elements when it bears on the mens rea required by the charged offense. In turn, insanity is a limited defense that requires showing that the defendant has the relevant legally defined mental-state condition. This means that while an evaluation may find evidence of trauma, psychosis, mood symptoms, or cognitive impairment, all of which may impair a defendant’s ability to function, that may not be enough to show that the defendant does not have the legal capacity to form criminal intent.

Similarly, a federal defendant’s psychiatric or psychological condition does not automatically prove anything, as psychiatric and psychological evaluations are only as good as the evaluators who perform them. While mental health evaluations are often conducted with the implicit assumption that evaluators will be objective, evaluations can be affected by biases and other external factors that skew the results. Many evaluators will simply rely on the defendant’s statements, self-reported history, and tests, which will shape their conclusions about the defendant’s mental illness and criminal responsibility. Unfortunately, this can lead to a finding that the defendant was sane even if evidence strongly supports the opposite.

At the same time, even if a mental-health diagnosis is present, that diagnosis alone does not necessarily prove that the defendant was unable to form criminal intent. Psychiatric and psychological conditions don’t just affect cognition, memory, executive function, and judgment, they have a far broader range of effects, many of which do not impair criminal capacity. So, even if evidence shows the defendant suffered from PTSD, dementia, or major depressive disorder, the prosecution can quickly undermine the defense by pointing to the defendant’s presumed capacity.

Even in cases where a defendant does not claim the defense of insanity or incompetency, mental-health evidence can still play a critical role in his or her defense. In this scenario, mental-health evidence can be used by the defendant’s and government’s experts to support evidence of or disprove the defendant’s ability to form criminal intent at the time of the alleged offense. As a result, this evidence may be used to show either mental or emotional mitigation or to fight against a criminal conviction. If there is a strong argument for either, it is in the defendant’s best interest to present it. This is because these evaluations can support a reduced sentence and better chances of getting probation, especially if the defendant is deemed to have a mental-health condition.

Talk to Spodek Law Group

Every case turns on its own facts, and general information is no substitute for advice about yours. Todd Spodek, managing partner of Spodek Law Group, and the firm's attorneys defend federal criminal and white collar matters nationwide. Reach the firm at 888 348 8028.