Competency to stand trial
Competency to stand trial is a legal principle that ensures individuals charged with criminal offenses possess the mental capacity to participate in their defense. Rooted in English common law and recognized as a constitutional right in the United States, competency is essential for safeguarding due process within the adversarial justice system. The landmark case Dusky v. United States (1960) established that a defendant must have sufficient ability to consult with their lawyer and understand court proceedings to be deemed competent.
The process of determining competency involves three stages: initiating an inquiry, making a preliminary determination, and, if warranted, conducting a competency hearing. Typically, this inquiry is prompted by the defense or prosecution, followed by a mandatory psychiatric evaluation to assess the defendant's mental state. If incompetency is suggested, an adversarial hearing is held, with psychiatric testimony playing a central role in the judge's ruling.
A finding of incompetency does not equate to a not guilty verdict; instead, individuals may be committed to a psychiatric institution for treatment, though the length of such confinement must be reasonable and not indefinite, as established by the Supreme Court in Jackson v. Indiana (1972). This framework reflects a commitment to ensuring that all individuals, regardless of their mental capacity, receive fair treatment under the law.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Competency to stand trial
Definition: Determination of whether defendants are mentally able to understand the charges against them and to understand trial proceedings
Significance: A long-standing American and English legal tradition holds that mentally incompetent persons should not be subjected to criminal trials.
The idea that a person judged to be incompetent should not be forced to stand trial on criminal charges has its basis in English common law. In the United States it has been considered a constitutional principle since the Supreme Court case Drope v. Missouri (1975). Part of the rationale is that if an accused party does not have the capacity to participate in the trial, then the American adversarial system of justice cannot be fairly applied, and the accused will therefore not receive due process of law.
Dusky v. United States (1960) established that the standard of incompetency for federal trials was to be whether the accused has “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” and could have a rational and factual understanding of court proceedings. To be legally competent, a person must be able to confer with a lawyer, testify coherently, and follow evidence that is presented. State courts generally follow this standard as well, although the wording of state statutes varies. Although the federal incompetency statute refers to mental incapacitation, some cases of severe physical incapacitation have been held to constitute incompetency.
Determining competency involves three stages: initiating an inquiry, making a preliminary determination as to competency, and, if there is sufficient evidence, holding a competency hearing. An inquiry is usually initiated by counsel, either prosecution or defense. Generally a psychiatric evaluation is then mandatory. If the examination indicates that the defendant may be incompetent, a competency hearing is mandatory. The hearing is adversarial in nature; the main witness is usually the psychiatrist who conducted the psychiatric evaluation, but other witnesses may also be called. The trial judge usually rules on the defendant’s competency, and the judge may consider the defendant’s appearance and demeanor as well as the witness’s testimony. A finding of incompetency does not mean that the person has been judged not guilty. Traditionally, a person found incompetent would be committed to a psychiatric institution, and there were no restrictions on how long such confinement could be. In Jackson v. Indiana (1972), however, the Supreme Court ruled that indefinite commitment is unconstitutional and that the length of commitment cannot exceed “the reasonable period of time necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that he will attain competency in the foreseeable future.”
Bibliography
Bardwell, Mark C., and Bruce A. Arrigo. Criminal Competency on Trial: The Case of Colin Ferguson. Durham: Carolina Acad., 2002. Print.
Huckabee, Harlow M. Mental Disability Issues in the Criminal Justice System: What They Are, Who Evaluates Them, How and When. Springfield: Thomas, 2000. Print.
Perlin, Michael L. A Prescription for Dignity: Rethinking Criminal Justice and Mental Disability Law. Surrey: Ashgate, 2013. Print.
Schopp, Robert F., et al., eds. Mental Disorder and Criminal Law: Responsibility, Punishment and Competence. New York: Springer, 2009. Print.
Slobogin, Christopher. Minding Justice: Laws That Deprive People with Mental Disability of Life and Liberty. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2006. Print.
Zapf, Patricia A., and Ronald Roesch. Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial. New York: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.