Introduction to Competency To Proceed

Transcription

1 Introduction to Competency To Proceed Ryan C. W. Hall MD Assistant Professor, UCF, Orlando FL Affiliate Assistant Professor, USF, Tampa FL Adjunct Professor, Barry Law School, Orlando FL 1 Examples of Competency Criminal Waive Miranda rights Stand trial Waive counsel Represent oneself Plead guilty Be executed Civil Make treatment decisions Consent to research Marry Write a will Handle one s finances 2 1

2 Competency to Stand Trial Emerged out of 17th century law Mute by malice vs. by visitation from God Pressing to obtain a plea 3 Competency to Stand Trial In the United States 6th Amendment - Assistance of counsel 14th Amendment- Due process Most frequently raised issue among the criminal competencies 4 2

3 Working Definition of Competence Whether the person understands the nature of the specific act and is aware of the duty, obligation, and consequences it entails. During Casey Anthony s 2011 trial, the issue of competency was raised in the middle of the trial resulting in a delay 5 Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966) Due Process clause of the 14 th Amendment requires trial courts to hold a suitable hearing on competence to stand trial whenever there is a bona fide doubt (Low threshold) Was evaluated by three mental health professionals, found competent, and trial resumed within days 6 3

4 Principles Related to Competence Task-specific Moment-specific Diagnosis does not define incompetence There is a general presumption of competence COMPETENCY IS NOT THE SAME AS SANITY Incompetence requires a judicial determination 7 Dusky v. United States U.S. Supreme Court, 1960 Holding: A defendant is competent to stand trial if [he] has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. 8 4

5 Importance Of Dusky Dusky is the most widely quoted judicial standard for competency to stand trial. However, it was superseded in federal trials by wording specified in the Insanity Defense Reform Act of The wording rational understanding has been omitted from a number of state standards. John Hinckley trial in early 80 s lead to insanity defense reform act Question? What issues are usually looked at in a competency evaluation? How is the opinion determined? 10 5

6 New Mexico 1995 Senate Bill 495 amendment that passed the Senate When a psychologist or psychiatrist testifies during a defendant's competency hearing, the psychologist or psychiatrist shall wear a cone-shaped hat that is not less than two feet tall. The surface of the hat shall be imprinted with stars and lightning bolts. Additionally, a psychologist or psychiatrist shall be required to don a white beard that is not less than 18 inches in length, and shall punctuate crucial elements of his testimony by stabbing the air with a wand. Whenever a psychologist or psychiatrist provides expert testimony regarding a defendant's competency, the bailiff shall contemporaneously dim the courtroom lights and administer two strikes to a Chinese gong [...] 11 Ryan Chaloner Winton Hall M.D. 12 6

7 McGarry Criteria Planning legal strategy (e.g. work with attorney, provide information, understand plea bargaining) Appraisal of roles in adversary system Appraisal of possible/likely outcomes Capacity to testify relevantly Presence or absence of self-defeating motivation 13 McGarry Criteria Level of unmanageable behavior Understanding of court procedure Appreciation of the charges (e.g. knows what is charged with, misdemeanor from felony) Appreciation of the range and nature of possible penalties Capacity to realistically challenge prosecution witnesses 14 7

8 Federal Standard Present mental disease or defect (what is a defect?) renders the defendant unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist in his defense. Medical and legal definitions may differ and change with time 15 Florida s Definition of Mental Illness ( ) Mental illness means an impairment of the emotional processes that exercise conscious control of one's actions, or of the ability to perceive or understand reality, which impairment substantially interferes with a defendant's ability to meet the ordinary demands of living Orlando Downtown Shooter. Eventually found guilty but was incompetent for years. Photo from 2012 competency hearing 16 8

9 Jackson v. Indiana U.S. Supreme Court, 1972 A person committed to a hospital solely on account of incompetency to stand trial cannot be held more than the reasonable period of time necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that he will attain that competency in the foreseeable future. If restoration not possible, commitment must be via civil commitment Dismissal of Charges The charges against any defendant adjudicated incompetent to proceed due to the defendant's mental illness shall be dismissed without prejudice to the state if the defendant remains incompetent to proceed 5 years after such determination.... The charges against the defendant are dismissed without prejudice to the state to refile the charges should the defendant be declared competent to proceed in the future. 18 9

10 Jackson Quoted in Later Cases Due Process requires that the nature and duration of confinement bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is confined. Cases of Wyatt v. Stickney, 1972 (Conditions in state hospitals) Donaldson v. O'Connor, 1974 (Civil commitment in Florida) Jones v. U.S., 1983 (release for insanity acquittal) Foucha v. Louisiana, 1992 (release for insanity, just dangerous) Seling v. Young, 2001 (sexual predator case) 19 Cooper v. Oklahoma U.S. Supreme Court, 1996 Reasonable to presume a defendant competent and place burden on defendant to prove incompetence by preponderance of the evidence (Lower level compared to Clear and Convincing or Beyond a Reasonable Doubt) 2011 Jared Lee Loughner was found mentally incompetent but later restored in

11 Reasoning Erroneous determination of competence has dire consequences. It threatens the basic fairness of the trial itself. communicate effectively with counsel choosing a plea waiving privilege against compulsory selfincrimination by taking the witness stand waiving rights to a jury trial 21 Specific Questions Which Can Arise with Competency 1. Medication What if only competent because of medications? If incompetent, can they consent to medical treatment? Can pre-trial detainees be forced medicated just for competency? 2. Competent to be own lawyer? 3. Is amnesia a grounds for incompetency? 4. Issues with competency to be executed? 22 11

12 Let s Look at Medication First 23 Medication and Competency - Florida Statute A defendant who, because of psychotropic medication, is able to understand the nature of proceedings and assist in the defendant's own defense shall not automatically be deemed incompetent to proceed simply because the defendant's satisfactory mental functioning is dependent upon such medication

13 Question Does a finding of incompetent to proceed also indicate that an individual lacks the capacity to consent to medication treatment? James Eagan Holmes: Although considering an insanity plea, competency to proceed has not been an issue to date. 25 Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule (b) Limited Application of Incompetency Adjudication. An adjudication of incompetency to proceed shall not operate as an adjudication of incompetency to consent to medical treatment or for any other purpose unless such other adjudication is specifically set forth in the order

14 Forced Medication for Competency? Every person of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his body. Justice Cardozo 27 Sell v. United States U.S. Supreme Court, 2003 Dr. Charles Sell, a dentist with a history of a psychotic disorder (Delusional Disorder vs. Schizophrenia), was charged with mail fraud, Medicaid fraud, and money laundering. Subsequently, he was additionally charged with attempting to murder the FBI agent, who had arrested him, and a former employee, who planned to testify against him in the fraud case

15 Sell v. United States U.S. Supreme Court, 2003 (6-3) Court held that medication to restore trial competency for serious offenses could be administered involuntarily under certain circumstances. 29 Sell v. United States U.S. Supreme Court, 2003 First, before administering involuntary medication to restore trial competence, the government should look to alternative grounds for forced medication, such as dangerousness or incompetence to consent to medication. (often forgotten) medication/ Forced medicated on grounds of dangerousness such as spitting and throwing chairs while in hospital for restoration 30 15

16 Sell v. United States U.S. Supreme Court, 2003 If the patient is not dangerous and is competent to refuse medications, then involuntary medication to restore trial competence for serious criminal charges is permissible if the treatment is medically appropriate, substantially unlikely to have side effects that may undermine the trial s fairness, and, taking account of lessintrusive alternatives, is necessary significantly to further important governmental trial-related interests. 31 Sell Factors 1. The treatment is medically appropriate 2. The medication must significantly further the state s interests Medication must be substantially likely to render the defendant competent to stand trial Substantially unlikely to have side effects that will interfere significantly with the defendant s ability to assist counsel in conducting a defense. 3. Takes into account less-intrusive alternatives 4. An important government interest is at stake 32 16

17 Sell Follow up In 2005, Sell pled guilty in an Alford plea before the court agreed he was eligible for forced meds. His plea was not contested even though his attorneys still thought he was not competent. The U.S. District judge sentenced him to time served, six months in a halfway house and three years on parole 33 Competent to Be Own Lawyer? D.C. Sniper serving as own attorney questioning accomplice 34 17

18 Godinez v. Moran U.S. Supreme Court, 1993 States Dusky standard is the standard for pleading guilty or making any decision in the trial Waiver must be voluntary and knowingly 35 Right to Represent Yourself Colin Ferguson was convicted of murdering six people and injuring nineteen others. Ferguson's trial was notable for a number of unusual developments, including his firing of his defense counsel and insisting on representing himself and examining himself as a live witness

19 37 Indiana v Edwards U.S. Supreme Court 2007 Need lower level of competency for trial than you need to represent yourself Reason is have assistance of an attorney at a trial... so do not need to be as mentally intact Limits parts of Godinez v. Moran, but does not fully overturn it

20 Amnesia: Vincent the Chin Gigante AKA The Oddfather, The Enigma in the Bathrobe, The Robe 39 Wilson v. U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1968 Amnesia per se does not equal incompetence, esp. where knowledge of events can be reconstructed defendant can follow proceedings and discuss them with attorney Specific factors should be reviewed post-trial to assess the fairness of the trial

21 Specific Factors Did amnesia prevent fair trial Extent amnesia inhibited ability to testify Extent of external reconstruction Did government assist in reconstruction Strength of case All reasonable hypotheses negated 41 Reasons Amnesia Generally Not a Bar Amnesia relatively easy to fake Potential unrestorability of defendants with amnesia Civil commitment may not be possible with amnestic defendants who could then be released 42 21

22 Competency to be Executed 43 Ford v. Wainwright US Supreme Court, 1986 In 1974, Alvin Ford was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. There was no suggestion that he was incompetent at the time of the offense, at trial, or at sentencing, but when the execution date approached, there was concern. The governor (Florida) appointed three psychiatrists, who together interviewed Ford for 30 minutes in the presence of other people, including Mr. Ford's counsel, the state s attorneys, and correctional officials. 22

23 Ford v. Wainwright Holding: The 8th Amendment prohibits the State from inflicting the death penalty upon a prisoner who is insane. (should term have been incompetent?) Florida's statutory procedures for determining a condemned prisoner's sanity (competence to be executed) were found to be inadequate because they denied a fact-finding procedure adequate to afford a full and fair hearing. Competence to be Executed In Justice Powell s opinion, determine what is required for competency to be executed: Prisoner is aware of execution Prisoner is aware of reason for it 23

24 Common Law Reasons The questionable retributive value Lack of deterrence value Offends humanity Stops chance of providing new information for appeals Inability to make spiritual peace(?) "Whether the aim is to protect the condemned from fear and pain without comfort of understanding or to protect the dignity of society itself from the barbarity of exacting mindless vengeance, the restriction found in the 8th Amendment." Panetti v. Quarterman US Supreme Court, 2007 On February 2004, the Federal District Court stayed Panetti's execution in order to adjudicate Panetti's claim of mental incompetence. The two appointed mental health experts concluded that Panetti was malingering in order to avoid execution. Panetti responded by arguing that the trial court s procedures did not comply with the procedures set forth in Ford v. Wainwright. Scott Panetti 24

25 Beliefs? Panetti believed that his execution was part of spiritual warfare between the demons and the forces of the darkness and God and the angels and the forces of light. For the lower courts, it was enough that Panetti knew simply that he was about to be executed and the factual predicate for the execution. Holding Criminal defendants sentenced to death may not be executed if they do not understand the reason for their imminent execution, and that once the state has set an execution date, death-row inmates may litigate their competency to be executed in habeas corpus proceedings Scott Panetti 25

26 Panetti v. Quarterman U.S. Supreme Court, 2007 Affirmed defendant s right to present expert testimony regarding competency to be executed Mistake not to allow consideration of defendant s rational understanding of reason for execution (similar to wording in Dusky) Execution put on hold again in December 2014 Summary of Dusky Standard The defendant must understand the charges Understand the nature of the proceedings. Must be able to assist attorney in the preparation of his defense. (does not have to be perfect) 52 26