Competency to Stand Trial as a Defendant’s Right

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Discussion
Legal issues
Outcomes and implications of competency determinations
Works Cited

Introduction

A Supreme Court decision that is often consulted when it comes to the question of competency is Dusky v. United States (1960). This has some definite and expert opinion on whether a defendant is competent. It says that a defendant should be able to rationally understand “the proceedings against him” (Swerdlow-Freed 24).

A defendant is protected of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Everyone is equal under the law and as such defendants have a right and should be protected under the law. This is the principle behind the competency issue. Defendants should have a significant part in defending themselves and should know what is going on inside the court. But mental health problems are a barrier to this right under the law. It is very specific in Dusky v. United States (1960) that a defendant must have the “rational and factual understanding” of the adjudication against him.

In criminal law, defendants should be competent to stand trial and to actively defend themselves. Defendants should have basic understanding of the adjudication that is going on and should be capable to assist the defense counsel in the trial.

Discussion

A definition of “competent” or “competency” is that if a person is arrested and brought to court for a crime, he/she should have the ability to understand what is going on, what are the charges against him and how he can effectively assist the defense counsel in the trial for his/her defense. The meaning of “incompetent” or “incompetency” is the contrary to the previous definition and the stress should be on the “inability” of the defendant to understand the proceedings. (Graham 6)

The legal context in the competency issue started long ago in the 18^th century. Sir William Blackstone said that if a man commits a grievous offence and before arraignment, he is perceived mentally unstable, the arraignment should be postponed. If, after arraignment, he becomes mad, the trial should be postponed because he would not be able to defend himself. If after the trial, his mental state is again in question, the judgment should be postponed; and if after the judgment, his mental health is not good, execution should be stayed. (Zaph and Roesch 2)

Blackstone’s writings have become a basis for the legal procedures in England and the United States. Richard Lawrence, who was tried for attempting to assassinate President Andrew Jackson, was considered incompetent to stand trial. In 1899, a defendant Youtsey was declared incompetent to stand trial because he was epileptic, which made him unable to help his counsel in the adjudication of his case. (Zaph and Roesch 2)

English common law has been understood as saying that any trial, judgment, or execution should be stayed if he is found to have “become absolutely mad” (Hale, 1736 qtd. in Roesch et al. 1).

There are at least three clinical conditions that a referral for competency to stand trial should be issued by the judge, and these are: when the defendant is perceived in a state of schizophrenia-spectrum; when the defendant is in “severe mood disorder”; or when the defendant has a very low IQ that he can’t comprehend the trial against him, or when the mental growth of the defendant has been considered retarded. (Swerdlow-Freed 24)

The mental condition of the defendant is a significant factor in determining competence to stand trial. He/she should be able to comprehend the proceedings and judgement against him and should have the capacity to communicate effectively with the defense counsel. There are cases wherein the defendant is unable to comprehend the proceedings that are going on. In this situation, their right to due process is being violated because they cannot testify in their defense, neither can they confront witnesses against them.

Some grounds for referral for a competency evaluation include a defendant’s history of mental or psychological problems, a defendant who has a low IQ, or a defendant who was reported to have amnesia.

The trial judge is responsible for initiating assessment of a defendant’s competency. Should the court believe that the defendant is not competent or cannot assist the defense counsel in the adjudication against him/her, or when the judge perceived that there was “bona fide doubt” in the defendant’s competence, a referral for evaluation should be issued (People v. Harris, 1990, qtd. in Swerdlow-Freed 24). Another situation is when the defense or prosecutor presents evidence that the defendant is not competent to stand trial.

The defense counsel also has the responsibility to evaluate the defendant in the course of the trial since stress could deteriorate the defendant’s mental state. The period of the trial and cross-examination could overwhelm the defendant.

The judge should refer the evaluation to a competent authority to test the defendant’s rational understanding of the events that are happening inside the court. The evaluation should be performed by personnel from the Center for Forensic Psychiatry and the Third Circuit Criminal Court Psychiatric Clinic situated in Wayne Country.

The court or the prosecuting attorney and defense counsel are encouraged to obtain second-opinion evaluation from other forensic psychologists. The defense counsel can obtain private examination in cases where the counsel wishes to review the procedures and findings of the first evaluation. Second-opinions can be helpful in certain situations where the defendant’s mental state has changed after the first evaluation was conducted. (Swerdlow-Freed 25)

In the course of the evaluation, the forensic examiner and the defense counsel should closely coordinate and collaborate with each other. The examiner shall then submit a report to the court along with the clinical findings, the circumstances and facts surrounding the findings, and the examiner’s overall assessment pertaining to the defendant’s competency. The court may also order the defendant to submit himself/herself for treatment if the court found that there was a probability that the defendant’s mental state could be restored to competency.

Legal issues

Determining whether a defendant is competent to stand trial is a legal issue and not a clinical one, but clinicians have a significant role in evaluating defendants’ competency. It is the clinician’s assessment and opinion based on the findings that evaluate competency. The prosecutor and the defense counsel should stipulate that the defendant is not competent in accordance with the report of the clinician. (Ferdico et al. 86)

Outcomes and implications of competency determinations

When in the course of a proceeding, a defendant is found incompetent but the court still continues in the adjudication, the defendant’s rights have been violated. (Pate v. Robinson, 1966, qtd. in Graham 5)

There are various instances that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that a trial should not go on when a defendant is deemed incompetent. Proceeding with the trial is a violation of a person’s right and the court will not serve of protecting the rights of society and of individuals.

Works Cited

Ferdico, John N. et al. Criminal Procedure for the Criminal Justice Professional. United States of America: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2005, 2009. Print.

Graham, Angila. Defense Attorneys’ Perceptions of Competency to Stand Trial Evaluations in Oklahoma: A Second Look. United States of America: ProQuest Information and Learning Company, 2007.

Roesch, Ronald et al. Defining and Assessing Competency to Stand Trial. Golding Publications, 2/23/2004. 2011. Web.

Swerdlow-Freed, Daniel. Assessment of Competency to Stand Trial & Criminal Responsibility. Michigan Criminal Law Annual Journal 2003. 2011. Web.

Zaph, Patricia and Ronald Roesch. Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2009.

Click Here To Order Now!