By: Dr. Emin Gharibian
Tel: 248-770-4906
Email Dr. Gharibian
If you’ve watched enough Law and Order, you’ve probably heard the term “Incompetent to Stand Trial (IST)” or competency to stand trial. We get a lot of questions from attorneys asking us if their clients are competent to stand trial.
The rules and laws surrounding competency to stand trial can be confusing and difficult to understand. The goal of this blog post is to provide an overview of the laws regarding competency to stand trial and how we evaluate individuals to determine if they are competent.
Under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S Constitution, everyone that is charged with a crime has the right to a fair trial.
For a trial to be considered “fair”, the defendant must be able to meaningfully participate in their defense.
The U.S. Supreme Court, Dusky v. United States (1960), held that the right of an incompetent defendant to avoid is trial is a fundamental aspect of our criminal justice system.
Every state might have some variation on the rules and regulations regarding competency. For the purposes of this article, we’re going to be talking about competency to stand trial under California Law.
Section 1367 of the California Penal Code states that a defendant is mentally incompetent to stand trial if, because of a mental disorder or developmental disability if they fall into either of the two prongs:
Prong 1: The defendant is unable to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings
Prong 2: The defendant is unable to assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner
It’s important to remember that incompetency is judged on the day of the proceedings. These two prongs help establish if the defendant has a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against them.
If the defendant does not meet the standards of either of these categories, they are incompetent to stand trial.
To evaluate for this first prong, the defendant needs to be able to answer at the very least, the following questions:
It’s not enough that they can just recite the answers to these questions in a rehearsed or rote manner. They must have a rational understanding of the information.
For example, a defendant should know what a plea bargain is and understand the consequences of taking the plea bargain.
I’ve often had defendants state they want to take a plea but don’t understand that they will not automatically get probation and that they might have to serve time in jail or prison.
Defendants will sometimes say that they want to plead “no contest” but don’t understand that the consequences of that plea are the same a guilty plea and they won’t get a trial.
Unlike the first prong, there really isn’t a simple set of questions that you can ask a defendant to assess for this.
To evaluate for the second prong, it’s important that the expert has an excellent understanding of mental illness and how it can impact an individual’s ability to make rational decisions and work with others.
The common mental health diagnoses that often impact a defendant’s ability to assist counsel including the following:
Typically, most defendants that are unable to meet this second prong are not able to do the following:
This list is not exhaustive and there can be other problems that the defendant might have that will interfere with their ability to assist their attorney in a rational manner.
For example, if a defendant has paranoid delusions and believes that their defense attorney is a spy and is conspiring against them, they are not going to be able to work with their attorney.
Another example is if a defendant has neurocognitive impairment due to a dementing disorder like Alzheimer’s Disease, they might not have the cognitive capacity to sit in court and work with their attorney to form a defense.
If a defendant is found to be competent to stand trial, then the criminal proceedings will move forward. If they are in a state hospital for competency restoration, they will be discharged to the county jail and will be held there during the trial.
Remember how I mentioned that competency to stand trial is evaluated the day of the criminal proceedings?
This is very important to remember, and I’ll demonstrate this with an example.
Mr. Jones is diagnosed with schizophrenia but is medicated and stable. He commits a crime, is arrested, and held in the county jail pending trial.
Mr. Jones attends several hearings and court dates and is psychiatrically stable, has a rational and factual understanding of the criminal proceedings, and can assist his attorney in his defense in a rational manner. His next court date is one month later.
For unknown reasons, Mr. Jones stops taking his medications, his symptoms worsen, and he starts to present with clear signs of psychosis. His thoughts are disorganized and don’t make sense, he is delusional, and he stops bathing and caring for himself.
Even though Mr. Jones was competent during all his court dates, based on how he currently is, he is incompetent to stand trial due to his psychotic symptoms.
Because of his thought disorganization and delusional thinking, he unable to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings and he can’t assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner.
In this situation, the criminal proceedings would be postponed until Mr. Jones receives treatment (e.g. medications and court competency groups) and his symptoms are better managed.
He would be evaluated again using the criteria I talked about earlier. If he is found to be competent, then criminal proceedings would move forward.
This is a question that we get asked all the time. What happens if a defendant is incompetent to stand trial? Do the charges get dropped and they get to go free?
No, the charges don’t get dropped automatically. If a defendant is incompetent, then the criminal proceedings are temporarily delayed until the defendant becomes competent.
In California, that means that if they are charged with a misdemeanor, they will receive treatment in a county jail in a specialized competency restoration unit.
In misdemeanor cases, they can be held in a county jail for up to 1 year for competency restoration.
If they are charged with a felony, they will be sent to a state hospital for competency restoration. There are only 5 state hospitals in California so the waitlist for the beds is very, very long.
In felony cases, the defendant has up to 2 years to become competent
If they have a psychiatric diagnosis like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, they need to be stabilized on medications. Most individuals who are incompetent and who are treated with medications can be restored to trial competency within 6 months.
If necessary, a judge can sign a court order for involuntary medication.
They would also meet with a social worker and rehabilitation therapist for one to one therapy and education groups to help them learn the court material.
If after 2 years (or 1 year if the defendant is charged with a misdemeanor) the defendant is still incompetent, then there are two possibilities:
The state hospital or county jail won’t wait until the 1 year or 2-year deadline to make this decision. The proceedings for conservatorship start at least 6 months before the deadline
To qualify for an LPS Conservatorship, the defendant must be “gravely disabled”. This means that as a result of a mental health disorder they are unable to provide basic personal needs such as food, clothing, or shelter.
The public guardian’s office will do a conservatorship investigation and find the defendant a conservator. Ideally, it should be a family member but in most cases, the defendant doesn’t have anyone that can be their conservator.
In these situations, the public guardian’s office will be the conservator and try to find the defendant housing and treatment (usually in a board and care facility).
In most cases, for the defendant to get conserved and have housing in the community, their charges have to be dropped. This generally happens if the defendant has a non-violent crime
What happens if the individual has a violent crime? This is where the Murphy Conservatorship comes in.
In a Murphy Conservatorship, the following have to be present:
If all of these are true, then the public guardian’s office will do an investigation to determine if a Murphy Conservatorship is appropriate.
If the defendant is conserved, then they will continue to stay in a state hospital until they are found to be competent.
These individuals can potentially spend many years in a state hospital until they are found to be competent or they no longer meet the criteria for a Murphy Conservatorship.
The U.S. Supreme Court, Dusky v. United States (1960), held that the right of an incompetent defendant to avoid is trial is a fundamental aspect of our criminal justice system.
Section 1367 of the California Penal Code states that a defendant is mentally incompetent to stand trial if, because of a mental disorder or developmental disability if they fall into either of the two prongs:
Prong 1: The defendant is unable to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings
Prong 2: The defendant is unable to assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner.
If after 2 years (or 1 year if the defendant is charged with a misdemeanor) the defendant is still incompetent, then they can be either placed into an LPS Conservatorship or Murphy Conservatorship.
The laws regarding competency to stand trial can be complicated and confusing. We’re hoping that this overview helped clarify things and helped you understand how we evaluate a defendant to determine if they are competent to stand trial.
Dr. Emin Gharibian, PsyD is a Clinical Psychologist specializing in Neuropsychology with over 10 years of experience in assessing, treating, and consulting on psychological disorders. He specializes in providing comprehensive psychological and neuropsychological evaluations for a variety of conditions including dementia, Alzheimer.s disease, complications from a stroke, traumatic brain injury, concussions, learning disabilities, ADHD, and PTSD in clinical, civil, and criminal cases.
©Copyright - All Rights Reserved
DO NOT REPRODUCE WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION BY AUTHOR.
10/5/2009· Psychology
On September 24, 2007, I interviewed Ms. Rebecca White for a psychological evaluation and report. She was referred by her attorney, Peter G. Eikenberry, Esq. for a psychological evaluation in the context of her litigation against Charlie's Supermarkets where she alleged sexual harassment, a hostile work environment and retaliation.The following is based upon the psychological evaluation of Rebecca White.
2/3/2012· Psychology
Child Investigative Interviewing: Is there a gold standard?
By: Dr. Michael J. Perrotti, PhD
Police departments across the United States are routinely questioning young children concerning child sexual abuse allegations. Frequently the police are untrained in the correct techniques to utilize for investigating interview of the children.
6/12/2020· Psychology
Law Enforcement Fitness for Duty Evaluations: The Definitive Guide
Fitness for Duty Evaluations have become more common for public safety positions. Courts throughout the United States have ruled that due to the level of trust and power given law enforcement officers, law enforcement agencies have a responsibility to ensure that officers are fit to perform their duties.
