A defendant who has been found incompetent to stand trial will be administered treatment for up to 15 months in order to attempt to make them competent to stand trial. After a defendant is restored to competency, they will return to the court system to enter a plea, have a trial, or in some manner adjudicate their case. If a defendant is being treated for his or her inability to understand the nature and the object of the proceedings, they will likely go through training and education to try to teach them about the court proceedings, including their role as a defendant, and the role of the judge, the prosecutor, and the defense attorney.
The forensic center will work with them on education regarding the criminal process, and work through how they might evaluate a situation like a plea offer from the prosecuting attorney. If a defendant is being treated for his or her inability to assist in his or her defense in a rational manner, he or she may receive medication as well as therapy to treat their condition.
In many cases, a defendant who has been found incompetent to stand trial both cannot understand the nature and the object of the proceedings, and is unable to rationally assist in his or her defense.
In those cases, treatment is likely to include medication, therapy, and education. Treatment for defendants who are found incompetent to stand trial is most often on an inpatient basis, and defendants will not be free to come and go from the treating facility, whether that is the forensic center or another psychiatric hospital.
However, visits from family members and attorneys are generally permitted during the time that the defendant is receiving treatment at those facilities. Last reviewed October Criminal Law Contents. A defendant or their attorney cannot waive the issue of competency. Criminal Law. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors in Criminal Sentencing. Restitution for Crime Victims.
Receiving Immunity for Testimony in a Criminal Case. Classification of Criminal Offenses. Admissibility of Evidence in Criminal Cases. Criminal Appeals. Motions for a New Trial in Criminal Cases. Competency to Stand Trial for Criminal Defendants. Continuances in Criminal Cases. Judgments of Acquittal in Criminal Trials. Joint Trials for Criminal Defendants. Immigration Removal Proceedings and Criminal Law.
Miranda Rights for Criminal Suspects. Right to Record Police Officers. Arrests and Arrest Warrants. Constitutional Rights in Criminal Proceedings. Discovery in Criminal Cases. When his defense attorney tried to meet with him, John began muttering under his breath that the lawyer was conspiring with the judge and the police.
In the above scenario, the defendant was disorganized during the time of arrest, but by the time the CST evaluation was ordered, he was back on medications and was overall functioning well.
Therefore, he was first recommended as CST. However, once he stopped taking his medications in jail, he became psychotic, refused to work collaboratively with his attorney, and believed the legal system was conspiring against him. At that point, if a second evaluation were ordered, he would likely be found IST and remanded for CR services. There are multiple competency assessment instruments that supplement clinical evaluations Table 2.
While these formalized checklists and structured interviews can assist evaluators with competency assessments, they do not replace a thorough clinical evaluation. To illustrate how critical the clinical evaluation is in CST evaluations, and that a clinical evaluation cannot be replaced by a competency assessment instrument, consider the following case. On a particularly bad day, Jodi calls the police for backup, as she believes that people are walking around downtown with bombs in backpacks.
The police arrive as she is being arrested—she was trying to take a backpack from a passerby, believing a bomb to be inside. Since she refuses medication, the treatment team requests the court to medicate despite objection. During the hearing in mental health court to determine treatment, Jodi, being a law student, starts to question the psychiatrist. She is well versed in the requirements that are needed for involuntary medication, and she insists on cross examining the psychiatrist, despite the judge advising her to defer to her attorney.
In such a case, a law student who is knowledgeable about the legal system would do well on scoring instruments. However, in undergoing a thorough CST evaluation, the evaluator would realize that the defendant is paranoid and likely unable to assist in her own defense despite having a strong factual base of knowledge. She is viewing the situation through a psychotic process.
This defendant would also be recommended as IST, despite her in-depth knowledge of the law, as she was unable to comport her behavior appropriately in the civil mental health court. By extrapolation, if the criminal court judge ordered a CST evaluation, she would likely be recommended to the court as IST because she was unable to work with her attorney in civil court due to mental illness symptoms.
Although there are no diagnoses that equal IST, psychosis and intellectual disability are the 2 most common clinical reasons that defendants are found incompetent to stand trial.
Nonetheless, a defendant with schizophrenia can be competent and, similarly, a defendant with intellectual disability can be competent. Consider the following case example. He was not a high school graduate; he dropped out in the middle of tenth grade as he no longer wanted to go to school. He successfully worked with his attorney on several other misdemeanors, both in family court as a juvenile and in the criminal court system as an adult. He has never served time, as he always managed to get probation.
Tony violates a no contact order, and because of his history of intellectual disability, his competency to stand trial is questioned. After an evaluation, including a clinical evaluation and the CAST-MR, it is clear that he has an understanding of the charges and their potential consequences.
Plus, as a result of years of experience in the court system, Tony also has a good handle on the trial process. He tells you that he is interested in accepting a deal, because it will allow him to avoid going to jail.
0コメント