Criminal Competencies

Question 1

Competence Def

Answer 1

Quality or condition of being legally qualified to perform an act and/or make decisions

Question 2

4 Domains of Competence to Consent to Tx

Answer 2

1. Capacity to express a choice
2. Capacity to understand relevant info
3. Capacity to appreciate one’s current situation and its consequences
4. Capacity to manipulate info rationally relevant to decisions at hand

Question 3

Historical Basis of CST

Answer 3

17th C common law for def’s pleas:
“Mute by malice” vs “Mute by visitation from God.”
Could be subject to “peine forte et dure” to force a plea

Question 4

CST 2 As

Answer 4

6th and 14th

Question 5

Dusky Standard

Answer 5

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

Question 6

3 Components of Dusky Standard

Answer 6

• Functional components (3 main prongs)
• Causal component (some understanding of why IST)
• Interactional component (particularities of the case and their interaction w/ def’s strengths/limitations)

Question 7

3 Policy Rationales behind Wilson Amnesia Policies

Answer 7

1. Amnesia relatively easy to fake
2. Potential unrestorability of defs with amnesia
3. Civ commitment may not be possible, resulting in release to community

Question 8

Necessary Inclusion in Juv CSTs

Answer 8

Developmental factors

Question 9

CST Instruments Court Acceptance

Answer 9

Jurisdictions vary on these structured instruments, increasingly being examined under Daubert w/r/t admissibility

Question 10

Competency Assessment Instrument (CAI) Overview, Pros, Cons

Answer 10

Semi-struc IV, scored 5 point Likert scale, evalutes 13 functions
- Checklist useful for structuring, and individual items useful for judges/lawyers look at data/results
- Limitation: scores not normed/standardized

Question 11

Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview (IFI) and IFI-R Critique

Answer 11

IV w/ atty as well, so problems there

Question 12

Georgia Court Competency Test (GCCT) and -MS State Hospital Revision (GCCT-MSH) (what it is, pros/cons)

Answer 12

21 items to assess 6 categories, =< 69/100 raises Qs
- Stable 3 factor structure of gen legal stuff, and good reliability/content validity
- Potentially superficial assessment of Dusky standard of understanding; many items just recognition

Question 13

Competence Assessment for Standing Trial for Defs w/ Mental Retardation (CAST-MR)

Answer 13

For ID/DD pts, tries to be less open ended, but norming samples didn’t include defs w/ criminal charges

Question 14

Fitness Interview Test-Revised (FIT-R)

Answer 14

Based on Canadian law, but may be useful in US

Question 15

MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool - Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA) (Pro & 2 Cons)

Answer 15

Good to assess appreciation/rational thinking from understanding,
- but maybe relies too much on a hypothetical situation instead of case specific
- Limited Qs on capacity to assist counsel

Question 16

Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial-Revised (ECST-R) (2 areas tries to add)

Answer 16

• Also includes systematic screening for malingering
• Manual includes section with error rates of instrument to try to address Daubert factors

Question 17

Minimum SOP for CST (& Case)

Answer 17

BOP on Def, by POTE (Cooper v. Oklahoma (SCOTUS 1996))

Question 18

Jackson v. Indiana SCOTUS 1972 Famous Quote & Gen

Answer 18

“D.P. requires that the nature and duration of confinement bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed”
Basically can only hold for reasonable period of time that will regain competence, & cont’d commitment must be justified by progress towards that goal. If not civ commitment or no

Question 19

Restoration Terminology in ID/DD Defs

Answer 19

Usually not used, instead “Habilitation,” “Remediation,” or “Training”

Question 20

Restoration Timeframe

Answer 20

6-9 months for acute MI, but timing studies often don’t factor in systems issues

Question 21

2 Types of Defs Less Likely to be Restored

Answer 21

Chronically psychotic w/ long hospital stays
Significant cog deficits

Question 22

Competence to Enter Guilty Plea 3 Things to Know

Answer 22

Must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent
Must understand: Nature of the charge, penalties associated w/ charge, and rights waived by G plea

Question 23

3 Reqs for Waiver of Constitutional Rights

Answer 23

Knowing, Intelligent, and Voluntary

Question 24

4 Rights Waived G Plea

Answer 24

1. Remain silent
2. Confront accusers
3. Jury trial
4. Trial counsel

Question 25

2 Cruxes of Miranda Waiver Competence Cases

Answer 25

Police coercion
Def of custody

Question 26

2 Types of Defs Possibly More Susceptible to Ext Coercion

Answer 26

ID/DD
Juveniles

Question 27

Knowing (what generally means, test basis)

Answer 27

Capacity to understand and manner in which informed of rights
- Generally based on totality of circumstances (manner given, whether assistance family/atty present to help def understand)

Question 28

Intelligent

Answer 28

Encompasses grasping the significance of rights (absolute, what atty/other things do, etc)

Question 29

Voluntary

Answer 29

Must be product of suspect’s will rather than police coercion

Question 30

LMC re: Voluntariness, & how it defined voluntary confession

Answer 30

Colorado v. Connelly (SCOTUS 1986), one made w/o intimidation, coercion, or deception

Question 31

2 LMC Cases (& what they provided) About CTBE

Answer 31

Ford v. Wainwright (SCOTUS 1986): Def must know being executed and reason for it
Panetti v. Quarterman (SCOTUS 2007): Should be able to present expert testimony related to CTBE, and trial court erred in now allowing consideration of rational understanding (although didn’t come to conclusion on that themselves)

Question 32

Competence to Testify 5 Factors

Answer 32

1. Ability to observe an event
2. ” to remember an event
3. Communicate memory of the event
4. Distinguish truth from falsehood
5. Understanding of what it means to tell the truth under oath

Question 33

Historical Competence to Testify Course

Answer 33

Historically, children presumed to be incompetent to testify & calling party had to prove competence; and ID/DD historically barred
But FRoE added in 1975 said every person competent to be a witness