Mental Health Law II: Clinical Forensic Evaluation Flashcards
Competency can be grossly defined as
“sufficient ability.”
Competency in forensic terms
typically refers to a client’s mental state during a specific period in a legal process
criminal responsibility
Aka insanity: concerns the client’s mental state at the time a crime was committed
view of competency to stand trial stems from
Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which promises due process for all defendants
Ake v. Oklahoma (1985)
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
Funk v. Commonwealth (1989)
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
The competency doctrine was initially set in place to protect
deaf, mute, and “lunatic” defendants, but questions eventually arose as to what type of defendant fits into the latter category
Higgins v. McGrath (1951)
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).
Explain what happened in Higgins v. McGrath (1951)
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.
Dusky v. U.S. (1959)
the Supreme Court established standards under which due process would be satisfied in matters of competency to stand trial.
Interpretation of the phrase “rational, as well as factual”
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
Pate v. Robinson (1966)
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
Drope v. Missouri(1975)
The responsibility to request a competency evaluation was expanded to include all parties, including the prosecutor
Jackson v. Indiana (1972)
U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals found incompetent for trial cannot be held indefinitely if there is no real chance of recovering competency
What is considered “reasonable” with regard to Jackson v. Indiana?
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.
Explain how Incompetency to stand trial is prone to a variety of abuses
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.