Mental Health Law II: Clinical Forensic Evaluation

Question 1

Competency can be grossly defined as

Answer 1

“sufficient ability.”

Question 2

Competency in forensic terms

Answer 2

typically refers to a client’s mental state during a specific period in a legal process

Question 3

criminal responsibility

Answer 3

Aka insanity: concerns the client’s mental state at the time a crime was committed

Question 4

view of competency to stand trial stems from

Answer 4

Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which promises due process for all defendants

Question 5

Ake v. Oklahoma (1985)

Answer 5

The U.S. Supreme Court ordered that indigent defendants must be provided psychiatric expertise at the point of sentencing in a capital case in which mental condition or dangerousness is at issue

Question 6

Funk v. Commonwealth (1989)

Answer 6

Extended Ake v. Oklahoma (1985) that indigent defendants must be provided expertise to psychologists at the point of sentencing in a capital case in which mental condition or dangerousness is at issue

Question 7

The competency doctrine was initially set in place to protect

Answer 7

deaf, mute, and “lunatic” defendants, but questions eventually arose as to what type of defendant fits into the latter category

Question 8

Higgins v. McGrath (1951)

Answer 8

set forth a reasoned argument that competency to stand trial is not dependent on the presence or absence of a psychosis (or even delusions per se).

Question 9

Explain what happened in Higgins v. McGrath (1951)

Answer 9

Higgins: accused of using the mail for obscene purposes.

Evaluated by several psychiatrists, all testifying he is paranoid schizophrenic with persecutory delusions.

Psychiatrists concluded Higgins was incompetent. Later committed under the incompetency statute.

Higgins filed a writ of habeas corpus for a redetermination of competency.

The Court replied that Higgins’s delusions were not sufficient to bar his trial.

Question 10

Dusky v. U.S. (1959)

Answer 10

the Supreme Court established standards under which due process would be satisfied in matters of competency to stand trial.

Question 11

Interpretation of the phrase “rational, as well as factual”

Answer 11

interpreted to mean that the accused must understand not only the specifics of the allegation but also the potential consequences of the trial (i.e., a sentence, possible imprisonment), the relative merits of basic legal strategies, and so forth

Question 12

Pate v. Robinson (1966)

Answer 12

U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the trial judge must order an inquiry into competency if a “bona fide doubt” exists as to the defendant’s competency

Question 13

Drope v. Missouri(1975)

Answer 13

The responsibility to request a competency evaluation was expanded to include all parties, including the prosecutor

Question 14

Jackson v. Indiana (1972)

Answer 14

U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals found incompetent for trial cannot be held indefinitely if there is no real chance of recovering competency

Question 15

What is considered “reasonable” with regard to Jackson v. Indiana?

Answer 15

The Supreme Court failed to define a “reasonable” period of time to remain in treatment due to incompetence. States typically allow from 1 to 5 years of treatment to restore competency.

Question 16

Explain how Incompetency to stand trial is prone to a variety of abuses

Answer 16

Issues arise about the defendant’s right against self-incrimination and the nature of examinations for competency.

Courts have held that the defendant cannot object to a motion by the prosecution or the judge to initiate competency hearings. Because the information discussed with the examiner is usually not privileged, and because it may be useful to the prosecution in the event of an insanity plea or in the penalty phase of the trial, the defendant may unavoidably aid in his own prosecution.

Question 17

Estelle v. Smith (1981)

Answer 17

Court held that Smith could not be compelled to undergo examination and have the results used against him, it did not specify how the results of incompetency evaluations could be used

Question 18

Medina v. California (1992)

Answer 18

The findings upheld in this case were that unless the state automatically puts the burden of proof on the prosecution as to whether a criminal defendant is competent to stand trial, it falls upon the party making that assertion, usually the defendant. Also, in this case, preponderance of the evidence was affirmed as the standard of proof.

Question 19

Name 3 checklists tool for competency

Answer 19

Competency Screening Test,
Georgia Court Competency Test (GCCT),
Computer Assisted Competence Assessment Tool.

Question 20

Name two comprehensive measures based on semistructured interviews for competency

Answer 20

the Competency Assessment Instrument (CAI) and the Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview (IFI), the Fitness Interview Test (revised edition),

and

the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool—Criminal Adjudication

Question 21

2 TOOLS: Tool to use for detecting when individuals are feigning incompetency to stand trial AND tool designed to assess competency in cognitively impaired defendants.

Answer 21

The Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (MFAST)

Competency Assessment for Standing Trial for Defendants with Mental Retardation (CAST-MR)

Question 22

State v. Perry (1992)

Answer 22

Louisiana Supreme Court ruled 5 to 2 that an insane inmate (in this case as a result of schizophrenia), Michael Owen Perry, could not be forced to take medication (in this case, Haldol) to make him competent to be executed.

Question 23

The competency to make a will in known as

Answer 23

testamentary competence

Question 24

In testamentary competence the testator (person for whom the will is made) must be able to do the following:

Answer 24

1. Understand the nature and extent of his or her property.
2. Realize the persons who are the natural objects of his or her bounty (e.g., relatives and friends).
3. Understand the distribution of the property contained in the will.
4. Understand the nature of a will and be able to form an intent to make a disposition of property that will be carried out after death.
5. Generally know how these elements relate to each other and form an orderly scheme for the distribution of property.

Question 25

Godinez v.Moran (1993)

Answer 25

Constitutional Basis for Separate Competencies Moran confessed to the murder of 3 people. Psychiatrists confirmed his competency to stand trial. Moran later waived his right to counsel, questioned about it, and found able. Later he filed an appeal stating he was not competent to waive counsel. The 9th Court of Appeals held that the trial Court’s failure to request another competency evaluation when Moran asked to change his plea and discharge counsel was a violation of his right to due process. The Supreme Court reversed lower appeal and stated that “Although the decision to plead guilty is a profound one, such a decision is not more complicated than the sum total of decisions that all criminal defendants . . . may be called upon to make during the course of trial”. the Court found a very low and nonspecific standard for competency to plead guilty or waive the assistance of counsel, in that the competency for either is the same as it is for competency to stand trial

Question 26

In competency hearings and all other legal proceedings, ultimate issues are always decided upon by

Answer 26

the finder of fact (either the judge or a jury).

Question 27

Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996)

Answer 27

the Supreme Court supported preponderance of the evidence as the standard in competency to stand trial, asserting that this is consistent with common law tradition, and that the presumption of competency along with the clear and convincing standard that was used by Oklahoma, could have a person proceed to trial who more than likely was incompetent

Question 28

When can a defendant’s level of competency can be questioned

Answer 28

At any point in the trial

Question 29

Criminal responsibility

Answer 29

refers to the state of the defendant’s mind at the time of the alleged crime, and includes the related concepts of insanity and diminished capacity

Question 30

For a punishable criminal act to occur, two related but independent factors must be present.

Answer 30

action and intention

Question 31

Diminished capacity

Answer 31

focuses on the inability to form a specific intent, that is, to have “mens rea.”

Question 32

guilty but mentally ill

Answer 32

at first seemed to be a promising concept It can on occasion be a way for a jury simply to avoid a difficult decision, in that GBMI makes it easier for a jury to convict in the “gray” area between sanity and insanity. Being found GBMI frequently does not entail reception of special mental health services as it implies, and it may actually be a negative bias when the person comes up for parole.

Question 33

In states that have abolished the insanity defense, what has become a de facto insanity defense?

Answer 33

proving the absence of mens rea

Question 34

In re M’Naughten (1843)

Answer 34

a British legal case that set forth the first formal legal test of insanity that would be used in the United States

Question 35

the Durham rule

Answer 35

Durham v. U.S. (1954): “Unless [the jury believes] beyond a reasonable doubt either that [the accused] was not suffering from a disease or defective mental condition, or that the act was not the product of such abnormality, you must find the accused not guilty by reason of insanity. He would still be responsible if there was no causal connection between such mental abnormality and the act.”

Question 36

Durham rule dropped for this rule

Answer 36

the ALI rule D.C. Circuit dropped the Durham rule in 1972 in U.S. v. Brawner; The Durham rule is not currently used in the United States

Question 37

the American Law Institute (ALI) rule

Answer 37

A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.

Question 38

After Hinkley, Congress passed a statute that established a “reformed” test for insanity in all federal jurisdictions: this test language

Answer 38

It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. (United States Code, 1984

Question 39

Present Federal Law: Legal standard for Insanity Defense

Answer 39

“Lacks capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his or her conduct”

Question 40

Present Federal Law: Final burden of proof for Insanity Defense

Answer 40

Clear and Convincing

Question 41

Present Federal Law: Who bears burden of proof for Insanity Defense

Answer 41

Defense

Question 42

What standards did the Supreme Court establish with Dusky v U.S.?

Answer 42

The accused must have (1) sufficient present ability to consult with an attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, and (2) a rational, as well as factual, understanding of the proceedings taken against him.