The practice of assessing and adjudicating competence for criminal adjudication in the United States developed largely without assistance from the U.S. Supreme Court or other state and federal courts of appeal for most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. However, the need for appellate guidance became evident in the 1980s, especially regarding the significance of mental or emotional conditions that can impair capacity for rational decision-making of persons accused of criminal behavior. During the past thirty years, some governing principles have come into view, but important issues remain unresolved. After a brief review of the historical and conceptual foundations of the competence requirement, this article focuses on two decisions in which the Supreme Court has addressed decisional competence. In Godinez v. Moran (1993), the Court ruled that a pretrial finding that a defendant was competent to stand trial established that he was competent to waive representation by counsel and plead guilty because the test for competence is the same in the two contexts. However, in Indiana v. Edwards (2007), the Court held that a defendant who was found competent to stand trial while being represented by counsel may nonetheless be found to be incompetent to represent himself at trial. Although these decisions are not strictly contradictory, they are in deep tension with one another. This article attempts to set the law on a coherent path by highlighting the significance of doubts about decisional competence in both cases and formulating a coherent approach to guide state and federal courts in the future. In so doing, it builds on the influential empirical contributions of the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Mental Health and the Law and integrates the author’s writing on this subject that was grounded in the MacArthur Network’s deliberations and has evolved over three decades.
On January 1, 2022, the most radical change to the American jury in at least thirty-five years occurred in Arizona: peremptory strikes, long a feature...
Professor Elizabeth Scott, the chief reporter of the American Law Institute’s (ALI) Restatement of Children and the Law, has often observed that the...
Berryessa et al. (2022) consider how prior experience as a criminal prosecutor may influence judicial behaviour, but their concerns about prior...
For several days, former President Donald Trump and his 18 co-defendants in a Georgia election interference case trickled into the Fulton County Jail...
Virginia adopted a risk assessment to help determine sentencing for sex offenders. It was incorporated as a one-way ratchet toward higher sentences...
Courts routinely use low cash bail as a financial incentive to ensure that released defendants appear in court and abstain from crime. This can create...
Scott Lilienfeld warned that psychology’s ideological uniformity would lead to premature closure on sensitive topics. He encouraged psychologists to...
We examined how the presentation of risk assessment results and the race of the person charged affected pretrial court actors’ recommendations to...
In our increasingly polarized society, claims that prosecutions are politically motivated, racially motivated, or just plain arbitrary are more common...
As social scientists seek to communicate research about what works in policing to police executives, they overlook important players in determining...
Across multiple national surveys sampling more than 12,000 people, we have found that a majority of Americans, more than 60 percent, consider false...
Given that no two acts, events, situations, and legal cases are identical, precedential constraint necessarily involves determining which two...
He who opens a school door, closes a prison. – Victor Hugo
Analogous to Nathaniel Hawthorne’s critique of his leaders’ decision to use punishment as a...
Sometimes a police officer can only stop a fleeing suspect by striking or shooting him. When is it morally justified to use such force rather than let...
William Blackstone famously expressed the view that convicting the innocent constitutes a much more serious error than acquitting the guilty. This...
This Article aims to reorient the conversation around "failure-to-appear" (FTA) in criminal court. Recent policy and scholarship have addressed FTA...