LANDMARK CASES IN FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY:
Competency to Stand Trial
Dusky v. US, 1960
Case Summary:
Dusky was accused of kidnapping and sexual assault. His competency to stand trial was questioned. The competency report described an inability to understand the proceedings or assist counsel.
The judge decided Dusky was competent to proceed as he was oriented, had some memory of the events, and was able to assist counsel.
US Supreme Court ruled that the evidence did not support a finding of competence. Dusky had only a basic understanding of the charges and proceedings, and was unable to assist counsel due to paranoia & psychosis..
Standard for Competency to Stand Trial is “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding- and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.”
Key Concepts:
Dusky Standard for Competency to Stand Trial:
Ability to rationally consult with lawyer to assist in their own defense.
Rational and factual understanding of the proceedings.
Wilson v. US, 1968
Case Summary:
Wilson crashed his car into a tree during a police chase following a robbery. He suffered a head injury, with permanent retrograde amnesia and inability to recall the incident. Despite this, the court found him competent, and he was convicted.
Wilson appealed, arguing that trying a defendant with amnesia violates rights to Due Process and Effective Counsel.
Court of Appeals found amnesia doesn’t inherently preclude proceeding to trial, but certain factors must be considered, including:
The extent to which amnesia impacts the defendant’s ability to consult with counsel and testify on his own behalf.
The extent of external information with which to construct and present a defense, and the extent to which the government assisted in the reconstruction of events.
Strength of the government’s case.
Key Concepts:
Retrograde amnesia doesn’t necessarily bar competence to stand trial.
Jackson v. Indiana, 1972
Case Summary:
Jackson was found incompetent to stand trial on robbery charges. The evaluators opined that restorability was unlikely, however he was committed indefinitely until he could be certified “sane.”
Counsel filed for a new trial, arguing violations of Due Process, Equal Protection, & Freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishment (14th & 8th), as Jackson was unrestorable and thus commitment equated to a life sentence in the absence of a conviction.
US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jackson.
Key Concepts:
Due process requires that the nature and duration of commitment bears reasonable relation to the purpose of the commitment.
A defendant found incompetent to stand trial cannot be confined for longer than reasonably necessary to determine if there is a substantial probability that capacity will be attained in the foreseeable future.
If determined to be unrestorable, the defendant may only be further confined via civil commitment proceedings.
Riggins v. Nevada, 1992
Case Summary:
Riggins was treated with antipsychotic medications and found competent to stand trial on murder charges.
Defense counsel requested the medications be stopped to show Riggins’ “true mental state” at trial in support of an insanity defense, arguing involuntary medication violated Due Process. This was denied, and Riggins was sentenced to death.
US Supreme Court ruled that defendants awaiting trial are due at least the same Due Process protections as prisoners.
Involuntary treatment while awaiting trial must be medically appropriate for ensuring the safety of the defendant/ others, and the least restrictive alternative.
Key Concepts:
Defendants awaiting trial are due at least the same Due Process protections as prisoners.
Defendants awaiting trial have a qualified right to refuse psychiatric medication. Antipsychotic medication may interfere with ability to testify, assist counsel, and understand proceedings.
Involuntary treatment while awaiting trial must be medically appropriate for ensuring the safety of the defendant/ others, and the least restrictive alternative.
Godinez v. Moran, 1993
Facts of Case:
Moran was found competent to stand trial on murder charges, after which he requested to dismiss counsel and change his plea to guilty. He was sentenced to death.
Requests for post-conviction relief on the grounds of incompetence to proceed pro se were rejected.
Circuit Court ruled that competency to waive constitutional rights, such as right to counsel, required higher functioning (“reasoned choice”) than Dusky (“rational and factual understanding)
US Supreme Court rejected that competency to waive counsel or enter a plea requires a higher standard than Dusky.
Key Concepts:
The standard for competency to waive constitutional rights, such as right to counsel or to enter a plea, is not higher than the Dusky CST standard.
Waiver of constitutional rights requires both that the defendant is competent to do so, and that the decision is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
Cooper v. Oklahoma, 1996
Case Summary:
Cooper was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The issue of competency to stand trial had been raised on multiple occasions due to paranoia and bizarre behavior, but the “clear and convincing evidence” standard wasn’t met.
US Supreme Court ruled that this standard was too high for competency determinations, violating Due Process. The appropriate standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence.
Key Concepts:
The standard of proof for competency to stand trial is preponderance of the evidence.
Higher standards present too great a risk of false findings of competence.
Indiana v. Edwards, 2008
Facts of Case:
Edwards was found incompetent to stand trial on murder charges. He underwent multiple rounds of competency restoration, after which he requested to proceed pro se and was denied. He was subsequently convicted.
Edwards appealed, arguing refusal of request to proceed pro se violated his 6th Amendment right to self representation.
US Supreme Court ruled that competency to stand trial or waive counsel is not the same as competency to proceed pro se. The Dusky standard applies to those represented by counsel.
The right to self-representation is not absolute. States are permitted to require counsel for defendants who are CST but incompetent to proceed pro se.
Key Concepts:
The right to self-representation is not absolute, one must be competent to proceed pro se.
Competency to stand trial does not equate to competency to proceed pro se. CST standard applies to those represented by counsel.
States may require defendants who are CST, but incompetent to proceed pro se, to be represented by counsel.