Competency To Stand Trial

Legal Doctrine

From the earliest days of the English and American criminal justice systems, provisions allowing for the delay of a criminal proceeding due to the incompetence of a defendant existed to insure that each defendant could knowledgeably present a defense against prosecution. Although today most defendants rely on attorneys to plan defense strategies and present their cases to the jury, the criminal justice system follows the historical view that defendants should understand, appreciate, and assist in their defense. This follows from the notion that criminal defendants should realize that they are involved in a process that will punish them for their wrongful conduct because society holds them personally responsible for their actions.

Although the idea of competency to stand trial has long been a fixture in law, what exactly constitutes incompetence has never been clearly defined. This confusion is exemplified by the prevailing standard set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dusky v. United States (1960), in which the Court held that a defendant must have “sufficient present ability to consult with a lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” and have a “rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings” against him or her. It is not enough for the defendant to give brief answers to the judge's questions. The defendant must show an appreciation of the criminal process he or she is involved in, as well as the potential consequences of the process. Critics have long argued that the Court failed to provide a bright line rule that can be practically implemented. For example, what is “sufficient present ability”? How does one evaluate a defendant's “rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings” against him or her? Nonetheless, almost all states have used the Dusky decision as the foundation from which to derive a framework for determining competency issues.

...