While serving as the head forensic unit psychologist at Central State Forensic Psychiatric Hospital in Georgia and as a forensic psychologist at the Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center, Dr. Lisa Long conducted numerous competency-to-stand trial evaluations and assessments. With her extensive experience in this field, Dr. Long can conduct Compentacy evaluations for the court or provide consultation to attorneys in complex competency cases. Please click the button below to schedule a consultation.

What is the Legal Definition of Competency to Stand Trial?

In legal terms, competency to stand trial pertains to a defendant's capacity to comprehend and actively engage in their legal proceedings. This is an integral part of the U.S. Constitution, specifically in the Sixth Amendment, which affirms a defendant's right to be present and assist in their defense during their trial, and the Fourteenth Amendment, which safeguards due process.

What are the Competency to Stand Trial Regulations in North Carolina?

According to the North Carolina General Statute § 15A-1001, no person can be tried, convicted, sentenced, or punished for a crime if, due to a mental illness or defect, they are unable to grasp the nature and purpose of the proceedings against them, comprehend their own situation in relation to the proceedings, or rationally assist in their defense.

What are the Requirements for a Defendant to be Considered Competent?

To be considered competent, a defendant is generally required to understand the nature and purpose of the court proceedings against them, including the roles of the key figures such as the judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, and jury. They must also be able to assist their attorney in their defense, which may include making strategic decisions, providing pertinent information, and exhibiting appropriate court behavior.

What happens when there is Doubt about a Defendant's Competency?

When a judge, defense attorney, or prosecutor suspects that a defendant may lack competency, they can request a competency hearing and mandate a psychological evaluation. This typically involves a psychological assessment conducted by a mental health professional, who evaluates the defendant's cognitive capabilities, mental health status, and comprehension of the legal proceedings.

What happens if a Defendant is Found Incompetent?

If a defendant is determined to be incompetent, the legal proceedings are usually paused. The defendant may then be ordered to undergo treatment, such as mental health therapy or medication, with the aim of restoring their competency. If the defendant is eventually deemed competent, the legal proceedings can resume.

What Happens if a Defendant Cannot be Restored to Competency?

In cases where a defendant cannot be restored to competency, the charges might be dismissed, or the defendant could be committed to a mental health institution.

How is competency to stand trial determined?

Forensic evaluators play a critical role in determining whether a criminal defendant is competent to stand trial. Their evaluation involves a comprehensive assessment of the defendant's mental state, cognitive abilities, and ability to understand and participate in legal proceedings.

Here is a detailed overview of the forensic evaluator's role in competency to stand trial evaluation:

1. Review of Relevant Documents: The evaluator will begin by reviewing relevant documents such as the police report, the defendant's criminal history, and any previous psychological evaluations.

2. Clinical Interview: The forensic evaluator will conduct a clinical interview with the defendant to assess their mental state and cognitive functioning. They will ask questions to determine whether the defendant understands the charges against them, the roles of the different players in the court process, and the potential consequences of a guilty verdict.

3. Mental Status Examination: The forensic evaluator will conduct a mental status examination to assess the defendant's current mental state. This may involve assessing their mood, thought processes, perception, and cognition.

4. Psychological Testing: The evaluator may administer psychological tests to assess the defendant's cognitive abilities, memory, and decision-making skills. These tests may include measures of intellectual functioning, memory, attention, and executive functioning.

5. Collateral Information: The evaluator may gather collateral information from family members, friends, and other professionals who have interacted with the defendant. This information can provide additional insights into the defendant's mental state and cognitive functioning.

6. Written Report: The forensic evaluator will summarize their findings in a written report that will be submitted to the court. This report will include a diagnosis, if applicable, and an assessment of the defendant's competency to stand trial.

7. Expert Testimony: The forensic evaluator may be called upon to provide expert testimony in court. They will be asked to explain their evaluation process and their findings regarding the defendant's competency to stand trial.

Competency to Stand Trial Case Law Overview

Over time, case law regarding competency to stand trial has been shaped by several important court decisions. One of the most significant cases is Dusky v. United States (1960), which established a landmark standard for determining competency to stand trial.

Dusky v. United States (1960): The Dusky standard refers to a legal standard established by the United States Supreme Court in the 1960 case of Dusky v. United States. This standard establishes the threshold for a defendant's competency to stand trial in a criminal proceeding.

The Dusky standard states that a defendant must have "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." This means that a defendant must have the ability to understand the charges against them, the roles of the different players in the legal process, and the potential consequences of a guilty verdict. They must also have the ability to communicate effectively with their lawyer and assist in their own defense.

If a defendant is found to be incompetent under the Dusky standard, they cannot be tried until they regain competency. The court may order the defendant to receive treatment to restore their competency, or they may be committed to a psychiatric hospital until they are deemed competent to stand trial. The Dusky standard sets the legal threshold for a defendant's competency to stand trial. It requires that the defendant have the ability to understand the proceedings against them and communicate effectively with their lawyer. If a defendant is found to be incompetent, they cannot be tried until they regain competency.

The Dusky standard has since been adopted by many states and is the prevailing legal standard for competency to stand trial in the United States. The case is considered significant because it established a clear legal standard for a defendant's competency to stand trial and helped to ensure that defendants with mental health issues receive a fair trial.

Here are five additional cases that guide competency evaluation and assessments.

1. Drope v. Missouri (1975): This case established that the court has a duty to raise the issue of competency to stand trial if there is evidence that the defendant may be incompetent, even if the defense does not raise the issue.

2. Godinez v. Moran (1993): This case clarified that the competency standard for standing trial is the same as the competency standard for pleading guilty or waiving other constitutional rights.

3. Indiana v. Edwards (2008): This case addressed whether a defendant with a severe mental illness has the right to represent themselves in court. The Supreme Court ruled that a defendant who is not competent to represent themselves cannot do so, even if they are competent to stand trial with the assistance of counsel.

4. Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996): This case addressed whether medication can be involuntarily administered to a defendant in order to restore competency to stand trial. The Supreme Court ruled that the medication cannot be administered if it interferes with the defendant's ability to assist in their own defense or if it has significant side effects that would undermine the fairness of the trial.

5. Sell v. United States (2003): This case established a balancing test to determine whether involuntary medication is necessary to restore competency. The court must weigh the government's interest in a fair trial against the defendant's liberty interest in avoiding unwanted medication.

List of relevant resources regarding Competency to Stand Trial Evaluations:

AAPL Practice Guideline for the Forensic Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial

NCSC Guidelines for Competency to Stand Trial Assessments