Eyewitness Evidence & Competency to Stand Trial

buergoy

Chapter8-CompetencytoStandTrial.pptx

Home >Psychology homework help >Eyewitness Evidence & Competency to Stand Trial

Competency to Stand Trial Chapter 8

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

Competency to Stand Trial

In this chapter

The Meaning of Competency to Stand Trial

CST Versus Competency to Plead Guilty and Competency to Waive an Attorney

How the Criminal Justice System Deals With Incompetent Defendants

Methods for Evaluating CST

CST Evaluations and Ultimate Issue Testimony by Experts

Restoration of CST

Adolescents and CST

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

Why is competence so important?

Defense attorneys disadvantaged without assistance from defendant

Defendants have a pivotal role in deciding whether to:

Plead guilty or not

Testify or not

Accept a plea bargain or not

Public perception of justice system

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

Competency

Legal definition of competency

Whether individual has sufficient present ability to perform necessary personal or legal functions

Types of legal competencies

To waive an attorney

To confess

To make treatment decisions

To execute a will or contract

To take care of oneself or one’s finances

For execution

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

Competency to Stand Trial (CST)

Standard set too high

Standard set too low

Without defendant assistance

Public respect for criminal justice system and unruly court behavior

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

Standard set too high = many individuals who lack court system knowledge will not face trial.

Standard set too low = many individuals who lack ability to participate in their own defense could be convicted of crimes without understanding how or why.

Without defendant assistance, attorney is less able to mount effective defense.

Public respect for criminal justice system and unruly court behavior may impact orderliness of legal proceedings.

Defendant ultimate responsibilities: whether to plead guilty, whether to waive trial by jury, whether to testify, and whether to accept plea bargain.

So What Does Legal Competence to Stand Trial Mean?

Seventeenth century

Legal doctrine of incompetence originated in English common law

Modern conception of CST defined by Dusky v. United States (1960)

Dusky Standard

Addresses defendant psychological state at time of trial

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

Competency to stand trial (CST) is most common evaluation by forensic psychologists.

Adjudicative competence: Defendant abilities needed to participate effectively in all legal process stages (Bonnie, 1993).

It is crucial to recognize that an assessment of competence focuses on the defendant’s ability, not his or her willingness, to perform relevant legal functions.

Incompetent to Stand Trial

Dusky v. United States (1960)

“…sufficient present ability to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.”

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

Competency to Stand Trial (CST)

»Two core questions:

Can the defendant understand the charges?

Can the defendant assist counsel with defense?

Legal competence rooted in 17th century English law

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

So What Does Legal Competence to Stand Trial Mean?

Adjudicative competence (Bonnie, 1993)

Foundational competence: Capacity to assist counsel

Decisional competence: Capacity to make informed, independent decisions

Sufficient present ability

Threshold for competence is relatively low for sake of efficiency

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

Competency to stand trial (CST) is most common evaluation by forensic psychologists.

Adjudicative competence: Defendant abilities needed to participate effectively in all legal process stages (Bonnie, 1993).

It is crucial to recognize that an assessment of competence focuses on the defendant’s ability, not his or her willingness, to perform relevant legal functions.

Functional Elements of CST

CST

Is legal, not psychological concept

Does not certify mental health/functioning

Includes defendant ability to perform ten court-related functions

Let’s review these.

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

Functions of CST

Defendants must demonstrate the ability to:

understand their current legal situation

understand the charges against them

understand the pleas available

understand the possible penalties if they are convicted

understand the roles of the judge, defense counsel, and prosecutor

trust and communicate with defense counsel

help locate witnesses

aid in developing a strategy for cross-examining witnesses

act appropriately during the trial

make appropriate decisions about trial strategy (Pirelli & Zapf, 2020)

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

So What Does Legal Competence to Stand Trial Mean? (part 3)

Should CST be a flexible standard?

U.S. v. Wilson (1968): Flexible standard

Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996); Medina v. California (1992)

Presumption of CST established

Preponderance of the evidence (POE) standard used when determining CST, including beyond a reasonable doubt (BRD) and clear and convincing evidence (CCE) standard

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

Flexible standard: Should the functions that a defendant needs to perform in a trial affect the threshold for competence?

CST Versus Competency to Plead Guilty and Competency to Waive an Attorney

Johnson v. Zerbst, 1938 (U.S. Supreme Court)

Guilty plea must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.

Godinez v. Moran, 1993 (U.S. Supreme Court)

Competency to waive attorney or competency to plead guilty not required once defendant CST found

Indiana v. Edwards, 2008 (U.S. Supreme Court)

Higher standard for the mentally ill to waive counsel set.

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

How did the verdict in the Colin Ferguson trial influence changes related to competence and mentally ill defendants?

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

Colin Ferguson was found competent to stand trial and then chose to represent himself. This may have led to changes in the legal standard for allowing a mentally ill person to do this without any additional assistance or supervision from an attorney.

How the Criminal Justice System Deals With Incompetent Defendants

Attorney is guided by ethical guidelines to inform if defendant thought to be incompetent

CST evaluations only introduced if defendant places mental state into evidence (Estelle v. Smith, 1981)

CST typically raised at pretrial hearing, unless bona fide doubt about defendant competency

Competency evaluation

Rarely disputed

May be strategic request (e.g., trial delay; prevent bail release; insight into insanity defense)

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

Methods for Evaluating CST

Currently: No gold standard for deciding CST; judges typically agree with expert conclusions

1971: Use of forensic assessment instruments (FAIs)

FAI use began; more objective defendants’ performance comparison

MMPI-2 most commonly used psychological instrument in CST evaluations; does not address examinee understanding of legal system or ability to consult with attorney

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

No test or combination of tests reveals with certainty whether a defendant is competent or incompetent.

No legal prescription for a particular evaluation method.

No formal process for selecting and certifying CST evaluations in most states.

Methods for Evaluating CST

Harvard Laboratory of Community Psychiatry

Competency Screening Test (1971)

Competency Assessment Instrument (CAI)

“Mac” tests

MacArthur Structured Assessment of the Competencies of Criminal Defendants (MacSAC-CD)

MacArthur Competency Assessment Tool–Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA)

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

See Table 8.1 for other CST assessment instruments.

Developed by national network of researchers

Evaluates adolescent judgment and decision making in variety of legal contexts

Includes questions involving hypothetical bar fight

Methods for Evaluating CST

Malingering

Intentional faking of illness motivated by external incentives/goals; faking incompetence to avoid trial/jail

Difficult to detect

Morrow v. Maryland,1982: Severe memory loss claim alone does not constitute incompetence

Tests are available to detect malingering

Inventory of Legal Knowledge

Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial–Revised (ECST-R)

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

CST Evaluations

Can be ordered at any time during trial

As long as there is “bona fide doubt” about CST

Completed by mental health professional

No gold standard

Includes use of Forensic Assessment Instruments (FAIs)

Competency Screen test – first CST measure established

Competence Assessment for Standing Trial for Defendants with Mental Retardation (CAST-MR)

MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool – Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT- CA)

Non-forensic assessments

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2)

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

MMPI-2 Sample Items

I like mechanics magazines I have a good appetite

I wake up fresh & rested most mornings

I think I would like the work of a librarian I am easily awakened by noise

I like to read newspaper articles on crime

My hands and feet are usually warm enough

My daily life is full of things that keep me interested I am about as able to work as I ever was

There seems to be a lump in my throat much of the time

A person should try to understand his dreams and be guided by or take warning from them

I enjoy detective or mystery stories I work under a great deal of tension

I have diarrhea once a month or more

Once in a while I think of things too bad to talk about

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

CST Evaluations: Competency Screening Test

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

CST Evaluations and Ultimate Issue Testimony by Experts

CST raised at pretrial hearing if there is bona fide doubt

Inpatient evaluations

Multiple opportunities to observe defendant behavior over time

Collateral sources of information

Outpatient evaluations

Less expensive, less intrusive

May fail to make explicit connections to specific competency-related abilities and deficits

Ultimate issue testimony/ultimate opinion testimony

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

Result of Competency Assessment

Fit  Proceed to trial

Unfit  Trial delayed until fit

Treatment (voluntary or forced)

Case can be dismissed

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

Important Note about CST

Difficulties associated with mental illness or mental health must directly affect the defendant’s abilities to interact with his/her attorney and understand proceedings

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

Agreement and Disagreement About CST

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

Three professional evaluators did not always all agree about defendants’ CST. (Data from Gowensmith et al., 2012.)

Restoration of CST

Evaluator report contains recommendations of restoration of competency to stand trial treatments

60,000 defendants evaluated by CST yearly (28% referred; 75% restored to competency within 6 months)

Characteristics of incompetent defendants

Likely to be unemployed, unmarried, lower intelligence, mental illness, drug abuse, less serious crimes

Single strongest incompetency predictor is psychotic disorder

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

Legal Spotlight: Legal Issues in Competency for Execution

Ford v. Wainwright, 1986: Executions do not violate Eighth Amendment

Panetti v. Quarterman (2007): Clarification of legal standard; no explanation of what constitutes rational understanding of state’s execution reason

Madison v. Alabama (2019): Issue is “whether a ‘prisoner’s concept of reality’ is ‘so impair[ed]’ that he cannot grasp the execution’s ‘meaning and purpose’ or the ‘link between [his] crime and its punishment’ ”

What responsibilities do mental health professionals have in restoring prisoners to competence for execution?

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

Competency to be Executed

Supreme Court: Cruel and unusual to execute a prisoner who does not understand why s/he is being executed (Ford v.Wainwright, 1986)

Must have a rational understanding of the state’s reasoning for execution

But didn’t clarify what exactly this means

Controversial for forensic psychologists

“Do no harm”

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

Treatment of Defendants Judged Incompetent

Jackson v. Indiana (1972)

Limited confinement period to time taken to determine if defendant can return to competence in foreseeable future

Involuntary civil commitment proceedings

Gravely disabled; imminently dangerous to self or others

Variation of treatment quality; little emphasis on legal competency restoration

Limited research on program type that produce best results for defendants with varied problems

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

Right to Refuse Treatment and CST

Restoration of CST

Typically involves antipsychotic medication treatment that has physical side effects

Lack of illness awareness may encourage medication refusal

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

Right to Refuse Treatment and CST

Government proof needed to force medication to restore competence

Riggins v. Nevada (1992)

Forcing defendant to take medication deprived due process

Washington v. Harper (1990)

Less protection from forcible medication for convicted criminal

Sell v. United States (2003)

Ruling about forcible medication for criminal defendant who is not a danger to self or others

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

See Table 8.2 for additional information.

Restoration of Competency

And so . . .

Defendant held in mental health facility

Determination made about restoration to competency in “foreseeable future”

If not, nonrestorable charges may be dismissed

Restoration may include education and treatment

Use of antipsychotic medication is controversial

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

Adolescents and CST

1990s: Transfer of juveniles to adult court allowed for serious offenses

Competence of juveniles is controversial

Immaturity

Poor judgment

Poor decision making

More apt to confess

Abilities may depend on age of juvenile

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

Consider This: Juvenile Transfer to Adult Court

Substantial increase in juveniles tried in adult court

New requirements in many states for transfer of juvenile offenders to adult court

Statutory exclusions for certain serious crimes

Current research suggests juvenile transfers ineffective in deterring commission of future crimes

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

Adolescents and CST

Research suggests that 11- to 13-year-olds are more likely than older children to have deficits in CST and to accept plea bargains.

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

(Data from Grisso et al., 2003.)

Hot Topic: Juvenile Competency to Waive Miranda Rights

Second most common competency evaluation

Police interrogation likely to cause significantly more stress and pressure on adolescents

Miranda rights may be too advanced in vocabulary and reading comprehension

Gallegos v. Colorado (1962): Interested adult standard

J.D.B. v. North Carolina (2011): Importance of adolescent age reiterated

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

Do You Know Why?

The mere presence of a mental illness is not grounds for a finding of incompetence.

FORENSIC AND LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY

Mark Costanzo | Daniel Krauss | Fourth Edition

The mere presence of a mental illness is not grounds for a finding of incompetence because the defendant’s mental illness must affect the defendant’s trial-related abilities.

Eyewitness Evidence & Competency to Stand Trial

image4.jpg

image5.jpg

image6.jpg

image7.jpg

image8.png

image9.jpg

image10.jpg

image11.jpg

image12.jpg

image13.jpg

image14.png

image15.png

image16.png

image17.png

image1.png

image2.png