User:Mcb182/sandbox

Competence to stand trial(CST)
'''A defendant is deemed competent to stand trial if they are found to have a sufficient present ability to understand and participate in legal proceedings. Every year just over 5% of all felony defendants, over 60,000 people are evaluated for competency to stand trial(CST). Of those evaluated, only around 11-30% are deemed incompetent.  Competency to stand trial depends only on the defendants current mental state and is entirely separate from their mental state at the time of the crime. CST does not necessarily certify that a defendant is of sound mental state, only that they are capable of understanding what is happening. Even severe mental disorders such as psychosis and amnesia do not automatically make a defendant incompetent. Studies found that about 2/3 of defendants suffering from severe mental disorders were found competent.'''

Legal precedent
This standard is based on the Supreme Court decision Dusky v. United States in which the Court affirmed a defendant's right to have a competency evaluation before proceeding to trial. Competence to stand trial was defined by the court as the defendant's ability to consult rationally with an attorney to aid in his own defense and to have a rational and factual understanding of the charges.

In this case Dusky presented a petition of writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court requesting that his conviction be reversed on the grounds that he was not competent to stand trial at the time of the proceeding. The court decided to grant the writ, based on a lack of recent evidence that the petitioner was competent at the time of the trial. The case was remanded to the district court for a new hearing to evaluate Dusky's competence to stand trial, and for a new trial if he was found competent.

The case set the current standard for adjudicative competency in the United States. In Godinez v. Moran(1993) the Supreme Court enforced the Dusky standard as the Federal Standard for competence to stand trial. Although the statutes addressing competency vary from state to state in the United States, the two elements outlined in the Dusky v. United States decision are held in common as the minimum federal requirement to be deemed competent. The defendant must understand the charges and have the ability to aid his attorney in his own defense.

Additional cases including Cooper v. Oklahoma(1996) and Medina v. California(1992) established a presumption of competency. '''Much like a presumption of innocence, a defendant is presumed competent to stand trial unless it is proven otherwise. Unlike a presumption of innocence, where the defendant must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, CST is determined only by a preponderance of the evidence. The defense must only prove that the defendant is more likely than not incompetent. In other words, the judge must only be convinced that more than 50% of the evidence indicates the defendant is incompetent.'''

Methods for evaluation
Competency to stand trial is generally determined via a pretrial evaluation of the defendant's overall mental status and mental state at the time of the examination. '''While CST is typically raised as a pretrial matter, a CST evaluation may be requested by the judge or either attorney at any point if a bonafide doubt is raised. While a judge has the power to overrule the conclusion of a competency test, this power is rarely exercised. Judges agree with evaluator conclusions over 80% of the time. In some states they agree up to 99% of the time. Generally, the decision of whether a defendant is competent is left to psychological evaluators.'''

Who is deemed qualified to conduct a competency evaluation varies from state to state. Evaluators are typically psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, or social workers. Originally competency evaluations included a range of tests and assessments. Recently the tendency is to simplify the process by relying upon an interview and, optionally, a psychological evaluation. While there are several widely used tests for CST, there is no one standardized examination.

While not formally part of the Dusky standard, evaluators commonly consider the defendant's ability to perform the following 10 trial related tasks when deciding competency :


 * 1) understand their current legal situation
 * 2) understand the charges against them
 * 3) understand the pleas available
 * 4) understand the possible penalties if they are convicted
 * 5) understand the roles of the judge, defense counsel, and prosecutor
 * 6) trust and communicate with defense counsel
 * 7) help locate witnesses
 * 8) aid in developing a strategy for cross-examining witnesses
 * 9) act appropriately during the trial
 * 10) make appropriate decisions about trial strategy

MMPI-2
'''One widely used test for competency is the Minnesota Multi-phasic Personality Inventory 2nd Edition(MMPI-2). The MMPI-2 uses 567 true-false questions to determine a defendants levels of psychopathology. While the MMPI-2 is generally quite good at detecting psychological distress, it has been criticized for not adequately focusing on the core issues of CST, an understanding of the legal system. '''

Harvard Laboratory Competency Screening Test
'''The Competency Screening Test was developed by researchers at the Harvard Laboratory of Community Psychiatry in 1971. The test uses 22 fill in the blank style questions such as "If the jury finds me guilty, I will _______." Each answer is given a score of 0(incompetent), 1(uncertain competence), or 2(competent). This test revolves around key elements of legal understanding. However, it elicits more extensive and varied responses than the yes or no format of the MMPI-2. Critics of the Competency Screening test argue that this makes it more difficult for evaluators to objectively score and harder test to teach evaluators how to conduct .'''

Restoration of competence
A defendant who has been deemed incompetent to stand trial may be required to undergo mental health treatment, including court-ordered hospitalization and the administration of treatment against the defendant's wishes, in an effort to render the defendant competent to stand trial. '''A majority of defendants who are initially deemed incompetent are eventually restored to competency. Various studies report 60% to 90% of defendants have their competency restored. '''