Mental Health Law II: Clinical Forensic Evaluation Flashcards

1
Q

Competency can be grossly defined as

A

“sufficient ability.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Competency in forensic terms

A

typically refers to a client’s mental state during a specific period in a legal process

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

criminal responsibility

A

Aka insanity: concerns the client’s mental state at the time a crime was committed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

view of competency to stand trial stems from

A

Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which promises due process for all defendants

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Ake v. Oklahoma (1985)

A

The U.S. Supreme Court ordered that indigent defendants must be provided psychiatric expertise at the point of sentencing in a capital case in which mental condition or dangerousness is at issue

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Funk v. Commonwealth (1989)

A

Extended Ake v. Oklahoma (1985) that indigent defendants must be provided expertise to psychologists at the point of sentencing in a capital case in which mental condition or dangerousness is at issue

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

The competency doctrine was initially set in place to protect

A

deaf, mute, and “lunatic” defendants, but questions eventually arose as to what type of defendant fits into the latter category

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Higgins v. McGrath (1951)

A

set forth a reasoned argument that competency to stand trial is not dependent on the presence or absence of a psychosis (or even delusions per se).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Explain what happened in Higgins v. McGrath (1951)

A

Higgins: accused of using the mail for obscene purposes.

Evaluated by several psychiatrists, all testifying he is paranoid schizophrenic with persecutory delusions.

Psychiatrists concluded Higgins was incompetent. Later committed under the incompetency statute.

Higgins filed a writ of habeas corpus for a redetermination of competency.

The Court replied that Higgins’s delusions were not sufficient to bar his trial.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Dusky v. U.S. (1959)

A

the Supreme Court established standards under which due process would be satisfied in matters of competency to stand trial.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Interpretation of the phrase “rational, as well as factual”

A

interpreted to mean that the accused must understand not only the specifics of the allegation but also the potential consequences of the trial (i.e., a sentence, possible imprisonment), the relative merits of basic legal strategies, and so forth

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Pate v. Robinson (1966)

A

U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the trial judge must order an inquiry into competency if a “bona fide doubt” exists as to the defendant’s competency

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Drope v. Missouri(1975)

A

The responsibility to request a competency evaluation was expanded to include all parties, including the prosecutor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Jackson v. Indiana (1972)

A

U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals found incompetent for trial cannot be held indefinitely if there is no real chance of recovering competency

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is considered “reasonable” with regard to Jackson v. Indiana?

A

The Supreme Court failed to define a “reasonable” period of time to remain in treatment due to incompetence. States typically allow from 1 to 5 years of treatment to restore competency.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Explain how Incompetency to stand trial is prone to a variety of abuses

A

Issues arise about the defendant’s right against self-incrimination and the nature of examinations for competency.

Courts have held that the defendant cannot object to a motion by the prosecution or the judge to initiate competency hearings. Because the information discussed with the examiner is usually not privileged, and because it may be useful to the prosecution in the event of an insanity plea or in the penalty phase of the trial, the defendant may unavoidably aid in his own prosecution.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Estelle v. Smith (1981)

A

Court held that Smith could not be compelled to undergo examination and have the results used against him, it did not specify how the results of incompetency evaluations could be used

18
Q

Medina v. California (1992)

A

The findings upheld in this case were that unless the state automatically puts the burden of proof on the prosecution as to whether a criminal defendant is competent to stand trial, it falls upon the party making that assertion, usually the defendant. Also, in this case, preponderance of the evidence was affirmed as the standard of proof.

19
Q

Name 3 checklists tool for competency

A

Competency Screening Test,
Georgia Court Competency Test (GCCT),
Computer Assisted Competence Assessment Tool.

20
Q

Name two comprehensive measures based on semistructured interviews for competency

A

the Competency Assessment Instrument (CAI) and the Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview (IFI), the Fitness Interview Test (revised edition),

and

the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool—Criminal Adjudication

21
Q

2 TOOLS: Tool to use for detecting when individuals are feigning incompetency to stand trial AND tool designed to assess competency in cognitively impaired defendants.

A

The Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (MFAST)

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

22
Q

State v. Perry (1992)

A

Louisiana Supreme Court ruled 5 to 2 that an insane inmate (in this case as a result of schizophrenia), Michael Owen Perry, could not be forced to take medication (in this case, Haldol) to make him competent to be executed.

23
Q

The competency to make a will in known as

A

testamentary competence

24
Q

In testamentary competence the testator (person for whom the will is made) must be able to do the following:

A
  1. Understand the nature and extent of his or her property.
  2. Realize the persons who are the natural objects of his or her bounty (e.g., relatives and friends).
  3. Understand the distribution of the property contained in the will.
  4. Understand the nature of a will and be able to form an intent to make a disposition of property that will be carried out after death.
  5. Generally know how these elements relate to each other and form an orderly scheme for the distribution of property.
25
Q

Godinez v.Moran (1993)

A

Constitutional Basis for Separate Competencies

Moran confessed to the murder of 3 people. Psychiatrists confirmed his competency to stand trial. Moran later waived his right to counsel, questioned about it, and found able. Later he filed an appeal stating he was not competent to waive counsel. The 9th Court of Appeals held that the trial Court’s failure to request another competency evaluation when Moran asked to change his plea and discharge counsel was a violation of his right to due process. The Supreme Court reversed lower appeal and stated that “Although the decision to plead guilty is a profound one, such a decision is not more complicated than the sum total of decisions that all criminal defendants . . . may be called upon to make during the course of trial”. the Court found a very low and nonspecific standard for competency to plead guilty or waive the assistance of counsel, in that the competency for either is the same as it is for competency to stand trial

26
Q

In competency hearings and all other legal proceedings, ultimate issues are always decided upon by

A

the finder of fact (either the judge or a jury).

27
Q

Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996)

A

the Supreme Court supported preponderance of the evidence as the standard in competency to stand trial, asserting that this is consistent with common law tradition, and that the presumption of competency along with the clear and convincing standard that was used by Oklahoma, could have a person proceed to trial who more than likely was incompetent

28
Q

When can a defendant’s level of competency can be questioned

A

At any point in the trial

29
Q

Criminal responsibility

A

refers to the state of the defendant’s mind at the time of the alleged crime, and includes the related concepts of insanity and diminished capacity

30
Q

For a punishable criminal act to occur, two related but independent factors must be present.

A

action and intention

31
Q

Diminished capacity

A

focuses on the inability to form a specific intent, that is, to have “mens rea.”

32
Q

guilty but mentally ill

A

at first seemed to be a promising concept

It can on occasion be a way for a jury simply to avoid a difficult decision, in that GBMI makes it easier for a jury to convict in the “gray” area between sanity and insanity.

Being found GBMI frequently does not entail reception of special mental health services as it implies, and it may actually be a negative bias when the person comes up for parole.

33
Q

In states that have abolished the insanity defense, what has become a de facto insanity defense?

A

proving the absence of mens rea

34
Q

In re M’Naughten (1843)

A

a British legal case that set forth the first formal legal test of insanity that would be used in the United States

35
Q

the Durham rule

A

Durham v. U.S. (1954):

“Unless [the jury believes] beyond a reasonable doubt either that [the accused] was not suffering from a disease or defective mental condition, or that the act was not the product of such abnormality, you must find the accused not guilty by reason of insanity. He would still be responsible if there was no causal connection between such mental abnormality and the act.”

36
Q

Durham rule dropped for this rule

A

the ALI rule

D.C. Circuit dropped the Durham rule in 1972 in U.S. v. Brawner; The Durham rule is not currently used in the United States

37
Q

the American Law Institute (ALI) rule

A

A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.

38
Q

After Hinkley, Congress passed a statute that established a “reformed” test for insanity in all federal jurisdictions: this test language

A

It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. (United States Code, 1984

39
Q

Present Federal Law: Legal standard for Insanity Defense

A

“Lacks capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his or her conduct”

40
Q

Present Federal Law: Final burden of proof for Insanity Defense

A

Clear and Convincing

41
Q

Present Federal Law: Who bears burden of proof for Insanity Defense

A

Defense

42
Q

What standards did the Supreme Court establish with Dusky v U.S.?

A

The accused must have

(1) sufficient present ability to consult with an attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, and
(2) a rational, as well as factual, understanding of the proceedings taken against him.