NCJ Number
86386
Journal
California Western Law Review Volume: 17 Issue: 3 Dated: (1981) Pages: 365-402
Date Published
1981
Length
38 pages
Annotation
Following a historical review of competency law and the role of medical and psychiatric testimony, the paper analyzes problems impeding medical-legal cooperation in this area and proposes a methodology for judicial determination in mentally retarded and mentally ill offenders.
Abstract
Tenets of British common law affording special considerations for mentally ill and defective defendants were transposed into the jurisprudence of early 19th century America. With the emergence of psychiatry as an accepted science in the late 19th century, competency doctrine evolved from a rough concept of basic fairness to a complex issue requiring expert medical and legal judgement. The article traces this trend through several major judicial decisions, including M'Naghten's Case (1843), Youtsey v. United States (1899), United States v. Chisholm (1906), and Dusky v. United States (1960). It then examines conflicts between medical and legal professionals over competency issues, in which the defendant and the adversary system of criminal justice often emerge as the losers. Research studies and cases demonstrate that medical experts generally do not understand or consider the legal standards for competency, while judges and attorneys fail to properly apply medical evidence to these standards. For example, psychiatrists may define competency in terms of diagnostic symptomology rather than the defendant's capacity for courtroom functions, and lawyers often stereotype mentally retarded individuals as strong, violent, and unable to perform any normal functions such as holding a job. The author outlines a two-step procedure for analyzing competency to stand trial: the law must provide a list of specific tasks a defendant must be able to perform to fit the legal definition of competency, and doctors must address their diagnosis to the effects of mental illness or retardation on the defendant's ability to perform each skill. The required skills must be those which enable a defendant to understand court proceedings, permit him or her to consult rationally with counsel, and participate in the trial by making decisions and testifying without undue stress. Using this methodology, the article identifies common symptoms and manifestations of mental retardation and discusses how they may affect skills required for trial fitness. The paper contains 190 footnotes.