Competency to stand trial (CST) determinations require an adherence to legal adjudication standards and psychological assessments methods. However, the forensic decision making on these matters is fraught with complex and enduring dilemmas. Questions persist about the vague and ambiguous nature of the precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court case law on mental illness and competency as applied to particular defendants. In addition, the clinical evaluation procedures pose sufficient validity and reliability problems that the assessment instruments themselves have been the source of considerable consternation. As a result, the medicolegal system, on occasion, has allowed controversial and profoundly disturbed mental health defendants to pro se their cases (e.g., Colin Ferguson) and/or has rendered questionable psychological screenings for high-profile CST cases (e.g., Theodore Kaczynski). In this article, the authors revisit the legal and psychological pitfalls attributable to the CST determination. They examine where and how the legal standard and the clinical evaluation procedures manufacture problematic results, particularly in well-publicized cases. They conclude by exploring the policy implications of their analysis for purposes of future criminal justice reform in this forensic mental health area.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). The diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
2.
Appelbaum, P. S. (1984). The Supreme Court looks at psychiatry. American Journal of Psychiatry, 141, 827-835.
3.
Arrigo, B. A. (1996a). The behavior of law and psychiatry: Rethinking knowledge construction and the guilty but mentally ill verdict. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 572-592.
4.
Arrigo, B. A. (1996b). The contours of psychiatric justice: A postmodern critique of mental illness, criminal insanity, and the law. New York: Garland.
5.
Arrigo, B. A. (1996c). Toward a theory of punishment in the psychiatric courtroom: On language, law and Lacan. Journal of Crime and Justice, 19(1), 15-32.
6.
Arrigo, B. A. (1997). Transcarceration: Notes on a psychoanalytically-informed theory of social practice in the criminal justice and mental health systems. Crime, Law, and Social Change: An International Journal, 27(1), 31-48.
7.
Arrigo, B. A. (2000). Introduction to forensic psychology: Issues and controversies in crime and justice. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
8.
Arrigo, B. A., & Williams, C. R. (1999). Chaos theory and the social control thesis: A post-Foucauldian analysis of mental illness and involuntary civil confinement. Social Justice, 26(1), 177-207.
9.
Berger, V. O. (1986). The Supreme Court and defense counsel: Old roads, new paths—A dead end? Columbia Law Review, 86, 9-57.
10.
Blum, A. (1995). LIRR gunman goes pro se with perplexing voir dire; strange behavior follows a rejected insanity defense. The National Law Journal, 17(23), A11.
11.
Boch, B. R. (1994). Fourteenth amendment—The standard of mental competency to waive constitutional rights versus the competency standard to stand trial; Godinez v. Moran, 113 S. Ct. 2680 (1993). The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 84, 883-914.
12.
Bonnie, R. (1992). The competence of criminal defendants: A theoretical reformulation. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 10, 291-316.
13.
Bonnie, R. J. (1995). Fergeson spectacle demeaned system. The National Law Journal, 17(28), A23.
14.
Borum, R., & Grisso, T. (1994, March). A survey of psychological test use in criminal forensic evaluations. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Santa Fe, NM.
15.
Caplan, L. (1995). Beyond reasonable. Law and Order, 28(11), 18-30.
16.
Charters v. United States, 863 F.2d 302 (4th Cir. 1988).
17.
Chernoff, P. A., & Schaffer, W. G. (1972). Defending the mentally ill: Ethical quicksand. American Criminal Law Review, 10, 505-531.
Coles, E. M., & Pos, R. (1985). Assessment of fitness to stand trial: The need for a profile rather than a scale. Psychological Reports, 57, 1051-1054.
20.
Cook, G., Johnson, N., & Pogany, E. (1973). Factors affecting referral to determine competency to stand trial. American Journal of Psychiatry, 130, 870-875.
21.
Coyle, M. (1999, February 15). Unabomber's pen pal: Ted wants a new trial. Newsday, pp. A1-A2.
22.
Davis, D. L. (1985). Treatment planning for the patient who is incompetent to stand trial. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 36, 268-271.
23.
Decker, J. F. (1996). The Six Amendment right to shoot oneself in the foot: An assessment of the guarantee of self-representation twenty years after Faretta. Seton Hall Constitutional Law Journal, 6, 483-544.
24.
Dershowitz, A.M. (1997). Reasonable doubts: The criminal justice system and the O. J. Simpson case. New York: Touchstone.
25.
Drope v. Missouri, 420 S. Ct. 162 (1975).
26.
Dusky v. United States, 80 S. Ct. 788; 80 S. Ct. 780 (1960).
27.
Fan, M. (1995, March 17). Ferguson to appeal. Newsday, pp. A28-A29.
28.
Faretta v. California, 95 S. Ct. 2527; 95 S. Ct. 2525 (1975).
29.
Glaberson, W. (1998a, January 9). Judge requires mental testing for Kaczynski. The New York Times, pp. A1(n), A1(1) col. 5.
30.
Glaberson, W. (1998b, January 20). Unabom team straddles a bluff and a hard place: Public defenders battling law and client. The New York Times, pp. A13(n), A12(L), col. l.
31.
Glaberson, W. (1998c, January 10). The unabomber travesty. The New York Times, pp. A24(n), A14(1), col. l.
32.
Godinez v. Moran, 113 S. Ct. 2680; 113 S. Ct. 2680 (1993).
33.
Golding, S. L., Roesch, R., & Schreiber, J. (1984). Assessment and conceptualization of competency to stand trial: Preliminary data on the interdisciplinary fitness interview. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 321-334.
34.
Goldstein, M. (1994). Long Island railroad shooter competent for trial. National News, A4.
35.
Goldstein, M. (1995, February 3). LIRR case a Acatch-22” in reverse. Newsday, pp. A08-A09.
36.
Grisso, T. (1986). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments. New York: Plenum.
37.
Grisso, T. (1992a). Clinical assessments for legal decision making: Research recommendations. In S. Shah & B. Sales (Eds.), Law and mental health: Major developments and research needs (pp. 49-80). Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.
38.
Grisso, T. (1992b). Five-year research update (1986-199): Evaluations for competence to stand trial. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 10, 353-369.
39.
Grisso, T. (1996). Pretrial clinical evaluations in criminal cases: Past trends and future directions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 90-106.
40.
Grisso, T. (1997). The competence of adolescents as trial defendants. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 3-32.
41.
Grisso, T., Cocozza, J., Steadman, H., Fisher, W., & Greer, A. (1994). The organization of pretrial forensic evaluation services: A national profile. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 377-393.
42.
Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354 (1983).
43.
Khiem v. United States, 612 A.2d 160 (D.C. 1992).
44.
Knight & Epstein. (1996). The norm of stare decisis. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 1018-1035.
45.
Laboratory of Community Psychiatry. (1973). Competency to stand trial and mental illness (DHEW Publication No. ADM77-103). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health, Education, & Welfare.
46.
Lanyon, R. (1986). Psychological assessment procedures in court-related settings. Professional Psychology, 17, 260-268.
47.
Lewin, T. H. (1969). Incompetency to stand trial: Legal and ethical aspects of an abused doctrine. Law and Social Order, 2, 233-285.
48.
Margolin, P. (1993). Gone, but not forgotten. New York: Doubleday.
49.
McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984).
50.
Melton, G.Petrila, J., Poythress, N., & Slobogin, C. (1987). Psychological evaluations for the courts. New York: Guilford.
51.
Melton, G., Weithorn, L., & Slobogin, C. (1985). Community mental health centers and the courts. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
52.
Milovanovic, D. (1994). A primer in the sociology of law. New York: Harrow & Heston.
53.
Nicholson, R. A., Briggs, S. R., & Robertson, H. C. (1988). Instruments for assessing competency to stand trial: How do they work? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19, 383-394.
54.
Nicholson, R. A., & Kugler, K. E. (1991). Competent and incompetent criminal defendants: A quantitative review of comparative research. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 355-370.
55.
Nicholson, R., Robertson, H., Johnson, W., & Jensen, G. (1988). A comparison of instruments for assessing competency to stand trial. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 313-321.
56.
Perlin, M. L. (1994). The jurisprudence of the insanity defense. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
57.
Perlin, M. L. (1999). Mental disability law. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
58.
Reich, J., & Tookey, L. (1986). Disagreements between court and psychiatrist on competency to stand trial. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 47, 29-30.
59.
Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127 (1992).
60.
Roesch, R., & Golding, S. L. (1980). Competency to stand trial. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
61.
Schevitz, T. (1995, February 20). In self-defense, literally some “fools” ignore Lincoln's maxim and represent themselves in court. San Francisco Examiner, p. A4.
62.
Segal, J. A., & Spaeth, H. J. (1993). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model. New York: Cambridge University Press.
63.
Steadman, H. J., McGreevy, M. A., Morrissey, J. P., Callahan, L. A., Robbins, P. C., & Cirincione, C. (1993). Before and after Hinckley: Evaluating insanity defense reform. New York: Guilford.
64.
Swisher v. U.S., 439 U.S. 1115; 99 S. Ct. 1019 (1979).
65.
Topping, R. (1995a, February 1). The pitfalls of self-representation. Newsday, p. A29.
66.
Topping, R. (1995b, February 5). Psychologist: Ferguson's competency a fine line. Newsday, p. A43.
67.
Topping, R. (1998). Long Island briefs: Ferguson appeal barred. Newsday, p. A43.
68.
United States ex rel. George v. Lane, 718 F2d 226 (7th Cir. 1983).
69.
United States v. Jennings, 855 F. Supp. 1427 (M.D. Penn. 1994).
70.
United States v. Kimmel, 672 F.2d 720 (9th Cir. 1982).
71.
United States v. Romano, 849 F.2d 812 (1988).
72.
United States v. Taylor, 933 F.2d (5th Cir), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 883 (1991).
73.
United States v. Wilson, 382 U.S. 454; 86 S. Ct. 643 (1966).
74.
United States v. Wilson, 690 F. 2d 1267 (9th Cir. 1982).
75.
Wildman, R. W., II., White, P. A., & Brandenburg, C. A. (1990). The Georgia court competency test: The base rate problem. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 1055-1058.
76.
Winick, B. (1987). Incompetency to stand trial: An assessment of costs and benefits, and a proposal for reform. Rutgers Law Review, 39, 243-271.
77.
Winick, B. (1993). Psychotropic medication in the criminal trial process: The constitutional and therapeutic implications of Riggins v. Nevada. New York Law School Journal of Human Rights, 10, 637-664.
78.
Winick, B. (1995). Reforming incompetency to stand trial and plead guilty: A restated proposal and response to Professor Bonnie. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 85, 571-624.
79.
Winick, B. (1997). The right to refuse mental health treatment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
80.
Zitrin, R. A. (1998, February 9). Who really spoke for Ted Kaczynski? The Connecticut Law Tribune, News.
