|
by Daniel H. Swerdlow-Freed, Ph.D.
Criminal attorneys, prosecutors and judges, immersed in their difficult case and court schedules are not always able to identify a mental condition that renders a defendant incompetent to stand trial. This article discusses some mental conditions that are associated with incompetency and details the basic elements of a thorough competency to stand trial evaluation.
Incompetent defendants may not be able to exercise appropriately their right to due process, including selecting and assisting defense counsel, confronting witnesses and testifying in their own behalf. The U. S. Supreme Court, in Pate v. Robinson (1960), ruled that a trial judge bears responsibility for raising the issue of a criminal defendant's competency if the court has reason to believe that the defendant may not be competent to proceed with adjudication, or if it is presented with evidence by either the prosecution or defense that calls into question this issue.
Similarly, case law in Michigan (People v. Harris, 1990) holds that a trial judge is obligated to raise the issue of a defendant's competency if "bona fide doubt" exists regarding this issue. These rulings create a duty for trial judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys to be cognizant of a defendant's mental state, and to initiate a referral for evaluation when evidence suggests that a defendant has a mental condition that impairs competency to proceed with adjudication.
Those who are unfamiliar with the area where law and mental health intersect may not readily recognize mental conditions that are associated with incompetency. The three major populations where this issue is most evident are defendants with schizophrenic-spectrum disorders, severe mood disorders and mental retardation. Defendants who have schizophrenic-spectrum disorders, that is, who experience fixed and false beliefs typically of a grandiose or persecutory nature, may display superficial capacity for rational and factual understanding of their legal situation and may be capable of limited cooperation with defense counsel. However, because these individuals do not possess stable, enduring contact with external, conventional reality, their delusional beliefs may surface only during extended interview regarding their legal situation or during adjudication proceedings, and they are liable to lack the ability to knowingly and intelligently weigh the defense strategies, and legal options that are available. Defense counsel must remain cognizant of the possibility that a defendant's mental state might deteriorate during the course of a trial because of the stress involved, and that the defendant might not be able to tolerate cross-examination without being overwhelmed.
Defendants whose mental condition is impaired by severely elevated or depressed moods also experience significant problems in thinking rationally and reasoning logically and, consequently, may not be capable of rational and factual understanding of the nature and purpose of adjudication proceedings. Furthermore, such individuals may lack the ability to sustain focused attention and concentration, sufficient to collaborate with defense counsel. Finally, defendants who are mentally retarded often lack the cognitive skills needed to understand the nature and object of a legal proceeding.
Referral for a competency evaluation might be initiated for a variety of reasons. A defendant with a history of psychological problems who is currently evidencing serious symptoms or abnormal behavior should be evaluated, as should a defendant who has been diagnosed with below normal intelligence, and a history of significant limitations in adaptive functioning in the areas of school, work, communication, interpersonal relationships, or age-appropriate independence. Defendants reporting amnesia, displaying disturbances in conscious awareness or memory impairment might also benefit from evaluation. Finally, if it is unusually difficult to communicate with a defendant and there is no apparent reason for this difficulty, a competency evaluation might prove useful.
A thorough competency evaluation would inquire into several areas including, but not limited to, the defendant's ability to understand the nature of the charges, the relevant facts of the case, the available legal defenses, ability to plan and implement legal strategy, and the plea options that are available and the disposition associated with each one. A defendant's understanding of the roles of judge, prosecutor, defense counsel, and jury should also be determined, as well as defendant's ability to identify and locate witnesses, to appraise their testimony and to communicate this understanding to defense counsel. The defendant's ability to relate to defense counsel is another important area of inquiry, and involves assessing the defendant's ability to have confidence in and work with defense counsel.
It is an accepted practice in forensic psychology to conduct evaluations using multiple sources of information, and multiple methods of data collection. Consequently, when conducting a competency evaluation, in addition to interviewing the defendant, it would be appropriate to gather relevant information about the defendant's behavior and current mental state from defense counsel, from medical and/or mental health records, from police and/or prosecution reports, from direct observation of the defendant, and from any other relevant source. Comprehensive evaluations are also likely to utilize forensic assessment instruments that are designed to assess knowledge-based competence and provide a means to relate a defendant's mental condition to his/her competency to stand trial.
|
