Information
AI Chat

Psych 348- Competency TO Stand Trial

Lecture notes. An excellent place to begin when studying. It contains...

Course

Forensic Psychology (348)

17 Documents

Students shared 17 documents in this course

University

Washington State University

Academic year: 2022/2023

Uploaded by:

Taya Ogada

Washington State University

0followers

47Uploads

3upvotes

Comments

Please sign in or register to post comments.

Related Studylists

FORENSIC LECTURE

Preview text

COMPETENCY TO STAND

TRIAL

Created

Class PSYCH-

Type Materials Reviewed

CLINICAL FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY

Previous sections focused on how psychological science can

provide general principles to inform the legal system.

Now will focus on how psychological evaluations are used in

specific cases.

COMPETENCE

Whether an individual has: Sufficient present ability To meaningfully participate in And perform necessary personal or legal functions

TYPES OF LEGAL COMPETENCIES

Criminal: To stand trial CST evaluation are the most common forensic psychology evaluations 60,000 annually in the US 2%-8% of all felony defendants are referred for CST evaluations

@March 16, 2023 8:10 PM

Dusky v. United States (1960) : Case facts Milton Dusky was 33, married with 2 children and diagnosed with schizophrenia A few months earlier he was hospitalized at the VA and his wife left him for his brother The night before the crime he drank two pints of vodka and took a handful of tranquilizers He drove 2 of his son’s friends to visit a girl On the way they saw a different girl the boys knew They drove her across state lines and the 2 boys raped her Dusky tried to rape her Dusky was given a mental status exam and judged competent to stand trial He was oriented to time, place and person. He was found guilty and sentenced to a 45-year term. He appealed the decision arguing he was not competent. In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court agree with the appeal Simply being oriented to time, place and person does not mean that a defendant is competent. DUSKY STANDARD At the time of the trail the defendant must: Be able to consult with his/her attorney Have actual understanding of the proceeding Have a rational understanding of the proceedings

Foundational and Decisional Competence (Bonnie,

1993)

Foundational competence Understanding of the trial process and participant roles Decisional competence

Godinez v. Moran (1993)

Moran killed 3 people in Nevada and tried to kill himself Killed 2 people in a bar he robbed and his ex-wife 9 days later Found CST 2 Months later asked to have his attorney dismissed and to plead guilty Sentenced to death Appealed claiming he wasn’t competent to represent himself Supreme court decided that pleading guilty and waiving the right to counsel do not required a higher standard than CST
7-2 decision

To plead guilty To waive appeals To be executed Is it constitutional to execute someone who does not understand that he is going to be executed or does not know why he is being executed? Violates the 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment Ford v. Wainwright (1986) If someone is not competent to be executed, is it ethical to restore them to competence? For medical doctors would it be a violation of the Hippocratic Oath?

The trial of Colin Ferguson

In 1993, Ferguson shot 25 passengers on the LIRR(long island rail road), killing 6 He was overpowered by the other passengers before he could kill more

When arrested he had 150 rounds of ammunition and noted indicating his hatred of whites and Asian-Americans His original attorney was William Knustler who was planning a “black rage” defense Ferguson was very intelligent and sounded coherent, but also delusional 2 psychologists testified that he had paranoid personality disorder but was not delusional His defense was that a white man stole his gun and committed the massacre His opening statement 93(criminal) counts, only because it matches the year 1993. Had it been 1925 it would have been 25 counts. This is a case of stereotype victimization of a Black man and subsequent conspiracy to destroy him. He told the jury that he would call a parapsychologist and exorcist who would testify that government agents had planted a microchip in his head. When cross-examining a ballistics expert he asked whether the bullet was tested for drugs and alcohol. His closing argument was that the 19 survivors conspired with the police to frame him He was sentenced to over 300 years in prison “Dignity was the First to leave” Michael Perlin (1996)

Indiana v. Edwards (2008)

Edwards shot 3 people after stealing a pair of shoes After being restored to competence his 1st trial ended in a hung jury For retrial he asked to represent himself After starting to conduct a rambling incoherent defense, the court required that he be represented by an attorney Supreme court ruled that the constitution does not forbid states from forcing mentally ill defendants who cannot conduct trial proceedings effectively to have representation

Ultimate Issue Testimony

Competence is a legal not a medical or psychological issue Therefore psychologists (& other mental health experts) should limit their testimony to describing the defendant’s ability etc., but not the ultimate issue of CSt Not everyone agrees with this Applies to sanity and other legal issues

Defendants judged incompetent to stand trial

Roughly 28% of defendants evaluated for CST are ruled incompetent 75% are restored to competence within 6 months Incompetent defendants are likely to be unemployed, unmarried, lower intelligence, suffer mental illness, abuse drugs, commit less serious crimes.

Most common reasons Psychotic disorders (e., Schizophrenia) Severe mood disorders (e., bipolar disorder) Intellectual disability What happens to defendants judged incompetent to stand trial? If the crime is minor, the charges are usually dismissed Often with the condition that the suspect gets treatments In other cases, the trial is delayed while the defendant is hospitalized, and an attempt is made to restore them to competency

Jackson v. Indiana (1972)

Jackson was deaf, mute, illiterate and had low intelligence He was charged with petty theft Found incompetent to stand trial with little chance that he could be restored to competence Was committed to a psychiatric hospital Even though IN had no means treat him Appealed to the supreme Court: Argued he got a life sentence for a minor crime he was not even convicted of Supreme Court: If the defendant cannot be restored to competency in the foreseeable future “The state must either institute civil proceedings applicable to the commitment or those not charged with a crime, or release the defendant”

Right to refuse treatment

Restoration typically involves antipsychotic medication Defendants might refuse medication because they Lack insight into their illness Have concerns about the side effects

Juvenile transfer to adult Courts Started in 1990s for serious Offenses But do adolescents have the same level of Competence as adults? Adolescent Characteristics Immaturity, Poor Judgment, Poor decision making, More apt to confess

Evaluating CST

Starting in the 1970s there has bee an effort to develop “Forensic assessment instruments” (FAIs) MacArthur Structured Assessment of the Competencies of Criminal Adjudication (MacSAC-CA) Includes questions involving a hypothetical bar fight

MacSAC -CD

3 Scales to asses Understanding: To Understand general Information related to the law and adjudicatory proceedings Reasoning : To reason about Specific choices that confront a defendant Appreciation: rational awareness of the meaning and consequences of the proceedings in one’s own case

Malingering

Intentional faking of illness motivated by external incentives/goals Faking incompetence to avoid trial/ jail Up to 15% of defendants evaluated for CST feign impairment

Was this document helpful?