NCJ Number
168330
Journal
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice Volume: 13 Issue: 3 Dated: (August 1997) Pages: 213-223
Date Published
1997
Length
11 pages
Annotation
This article questions the soundness of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Godinez v. Moran (1993), which held that the standard for competency to waive counsel and plead guilty is no higher than competency to stand trial.
Abstract
This decision is contrary to much legal and medical opinion. The American Bar Association's criminal justice mental health standards endorse separate standards for competency to stand trial, competency to plead guilty, and competency to waive counsel. To determine that defendants are cognizant of their actions, courts should engage in a contextual and functional analysis by considering the situation, circumstances, and purpose for which waivers are made, realizing that skills vary, depending on the specific task to be performed. In amicus briefs filed by the American Psychiatric Association and other mental health bodies, it was submitted that due to increased current sophistication and expertise, mental health professionals are capable of evaluating degrees of competency at any given time. In announcing a low standard for competency to plead guilty or waive assistance of counsel, the Court rejected the notion of competence tied to specific functions. The Court's decision in "Moran" raises serious questions about the future of competency determinations in the criminal trial process and may call for some reconsideration of the kind of evaluation and testing appropriate for competency to stand trial. 14 notes and 30 references