Competency to stand trial evaluations: a study of actual practice in two states

A criminal defendant must be competent to stand trial (CST) to safeguard the fundamental right to a fair trial. If there is a question as to a defendant's ability to assist in his or her own defense, a mental health professional is asked to perform a CST evaluation. Forensic assessment is a growing field, and CST is the most frequent evaluation requested. Over the years, forensic examiners' reports to the courts have been criticized for lack of relevance, insufficiency, and invading the province of the judge. If mental health professionals wish to advance the field of forensic assessment and respond to these criticisms, research on current practice with suggestions for advancement are necessary. A total of 66 CST reports conducted within the last five years in two states were compared to a proposed model for CST assessment. Results indicated that although forensic examiners are maintaining legal relevance, some CST reports may lack thoroughness and/or provide information that exceeds their role responsibilities. The findings support the need for the development of a standardized method of conducting and writing CST evaluations that should improve the quality of such reports.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. K. Erickson, J. R. Ciccone, S. B. Schwarzkopf, J. S. Lamberti, and M. J. Vitacco Legal Fallacies of Antipsychotic Drugs J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, June 1, 2007; 35(2): 235 - 246. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M. Bertsch, J. A. Younglove, and M. G. Kerr A Pilot Study of the Porterville Developmental Center's Court Competency Training Program Criminal Justice Policy Review, March 1, 2002; 13(1): 65 - 77. [Abstract] [PDF]