Abstract
Competency to stand trial (CST) is a contentious pretrial issue, confounded by ambiguous legal standards and inaccurate clinical tools. This article systematically explores both the controlling case law and the evolving assessment instruments, mindful of where and how they advance (or not) effective courtroom decision making. In the wake of our analysis, we propose a series of (criminal justice) policy reforms that address the problems posed by the CST legal doctrine and assessment technology. In brief, we call for changes with the competency evaluation procedures, the psychological instruments, and the legal remedies and/or strategies made available to the accused. We conclude by arguing that these revisions must be implemented if meaningful reform is to be effected for defendants whose competency is called into question prior to a criminal trial.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.