The document discusses the importance of adjudicative competency, highlighting that a defendant must understand and participate in legal proceedings to ensure a fair trial. It reviews the landmark Dusky v. United States case, which established standards for competency evaluations, and explains the nuances of mental illness regarding trial competence. Additionally, it covers related cases and assessments used by psychologists to evaluate whether a defendant is competent to stand trial.

1. ADJUDICATIVE
COMPETENCY
Robert Brister
Tejana Bennett

2. WHY MIGHT IT BE IMPORTANT FOR
SOMEONE TO BE COMPETENT BEFORE
THEY ARE TRIED?
• Adjudicative competence effects the ability to stand trial.
• It’s a legal construct describing the criminal defendant's ability to understand and
participate in legal proceedings.
• A person needs to fully understand what is going on in order to have a fair trial.
• They must be able to have a logical conversation with their attorney as well as a
court official.
• There needs to be factual understanding along with rational understanding of their
case.

3. DUSKY V. UNITED STATES
• This was as a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court
affirmed a defendant's right to have a competency evaluation before proceeding to
trial.
• This case set the current standard for adjudicative competence in the United States.
• The initial examination of this patient indicated that this Milton R. Dusky has had
episodes of mental illness probably of several years duration with remissions and
exacerbations.
• Doctor Sturgell, said that schizophrenia "is thought of as a long time developing
illness and lasts for a long time," and that the defendant's previous mental and
nervous disturbances fitted in with the diagnosis of schizophrenia.

4. DUSKY V. UNITED STATES CONT.
• The evidence of the psychiatrists as to the competency of the defendant to stand
trial was not unequivocal, and it was not shown that he was unable to understand
the proceedings against him.
• Under the evidence at the trial, the sanity issue was one of fact for the jury and not
one of law for the court, and that the defendant was not entitled to a directed
verdict of acquittal.
• Counsel for the defendant sincerely believes that the defendant was conclusively
shown to be incompetent to stand trial, that at the trial the Government failed to
sustain its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he was sane when the
offense was committed, and that because of his severe mental illness a serious
injustice has been done him.
• The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

5. DOES BEING DIAGNOSED WITH MENTAL
ILLNESS AUTOMATICALLY MAKE
SOMEONE INCOMPETENT?
• Not all mentally ill persons are incapable of competency. People with mental
illnesses such as schizophrenia, depression, dissociative identity disorder, and other
illnesses are capable of making logical decisions.
• 48% of schizophrenia group and 76% of depression group performed in the
adequate range for all decision making items.

6. WHAT ARE SOME ASSESSMENTS THAT
PSYCHOLOGISTS MIGHT USE TO
EVALUATE COMPETENCY AND HOW DO
THEY WORK?
• Competence evaluations are conducted with foundational and decisional questions.
• Foundational questions: does the defendant have the capacity to assist council? Can
they relate relevant information to their attorney? Do they understand their
situation as the defendant?
• Decisional competence: 1. Understanding the information that is relevant to the
case 2. Rational thinking of alternatives 3. Appreciating specific legal questions 4.
Making and expressing a choice about legal alternatives

7. HAS THE STANDARD OF ADJUDICATIVE
COMPETENCY CHANGED OVER TIME, OR
ARE THERE CALLS TO CHANGE IT IN THE
FUTURE?
• I have not found any major changes in adjudicative competence. The process to
determine competence has no major changes other than the varies by location.
• If one is determined unfit to stand trial they will not an alternative measure is taken.

8. RELATIVE CASES
• Godinez v. Moran -This case acknowledged the significance of decisional competence, holding
that a defendant's trial competence and competence to plead guilty should be addressed under a
single standard (the Dusky standard) and that the defendant's decision-making abilities are
encompassed within that standard.
• Johnson v. Zerbst- When pleading guilty, defendants waive various constitutional rights.
• Trial by jury
• Confront accusers
• Call favorable witness
• Right to remain silent
• The supreme court decided that waiving those important rights must be done knowingly,
voluntarily, and intelligently. Judges are required to question the defendant about their pleas in
order to establish they were clearly competent of waiving their constitutional rights when
pleading guilty.

9. RELATIVE CASES CONT.
• Youtsey v. United States- Federal case law linking trial competency to the U.S.
Constitution began with the 1899. Youtsey had been tried in absentia— due to
problems resulting from a seizure disorder—and convicted of embezzlement. The
trial court denied his lawyer’s motion for a continuance, which was based on expert
testimony that his seizure disorder resulted in severe memory impairment that
prevented him from providing counsel with information about “many of the vital
transactions covered by said indictment which ought to be personally within his
knowledge.”
• Pate v. Robinson (1966)- the U.S. Supreme Court held that a trial judge must raise
the issue of competency if either the court’s own evidence or that presented by the
prosecution or defense raises a “bona fide doubt” about the defendant’s
competency.

10. RELATIVE CASES CONT.
• Drope v. Missouri (1975)- the Court clarified that evidence of the defendant’s irrational behavior,
demeanor at trial, and any prior medical opinion on competence to stand trial are relevant to
determining whether further inquiry is required.
• Wieter v. Settle- court reasoned that factors to be considered in finding a defendant competent
under the Dusky standard would include:(1) that he has mental capacity to appreciate his
presence in relation to time, place and things; (2) that his elementary mental processes be such
that he apprehends (i.e., seizes and grasps with what mind he has) that he is in a Court of Justice,
charged with a criminal offense; (3) that there is a Judge on the Bench; (4) a Prosecutor present
who will try to convict him of a criminal charge; (5) that he has a lawyer (self-employed or Court
appointed) who will undertake to defend him against that charge; (6) that he will be expected to
tell his lawyer the circumstances, to the best of his mental ability (whether colored or not by
mental aberration) the facts surrounding him at the time and place where the law violation is
alleged to have been committed; (7) that there is, or will be, a jury present to pass upon evidence
adduced as to his guilt or innocence of such charge; and (8) he has memory sufficient to relate
those things in his own personal manner.

11. DEFINITIONS
• Exacerbation- also known as acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (AECB) is a
sudden worsening of COPD symptoms (shortness of breath, quantity and color of
phlegm) that typically lasts for several days. It may be triggered by an infection with
bacteria or viruses or by environmental pollutants.
• Schizophrenia- is a serious disorder which affects how a person thinks, feels and
acts. Someone with schizophrenia may have difficulty distinguishing between what
is real and what is imaginary; may be unresponsive or withdrawn; and may have
difficulty expressing normal emotions in social situations.
• Sanity- refers to the soundness, rationality and healthiness of the human mind

12. DEFINITIONS CONT.
• Magistrate- a civil officer or lay judge who administers the law, especially one who conducts a
court that deals with minor offenses and holds preliminary hearings for more serious ones.
• Mental disorder-is a diagnosis, most often by a psychiatrist, of a behavioral or mental pattern that
may cause suffering or a poor ability to function in life,
• Certiorari-a writ or order by which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court.
• Burden of Proof-the obligation to prove one's assertion
• Appellant Court-are the part of the judicial system that is responsible for hearing and reviewing
appeals from legal cases that have already been heard in a trial-level or other lower court.
• Inadmissible- (especially of evidence in court), not accepted as valid in a court of law
• Reasonable Doubt- Evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence
required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems.

13. WORK CITED
• http://lp.wileypub.com/HandbookPsychology/SampleChapters/Volume11.pdf
• http://www.jaapl.org/content/25/3/249.full.pdf
• Wrightsman, Lawrence S. Psychology and the Legal System. Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole, 1987. Print.
• Dr. Desforges Powerpoints