In my work as a forensic psychologist, I am often asked to evaluate defendants whose ability to participate in the legal process is in question. Competency to stand trial (CST) is one of the most important issues in criminal proceedings, yet it can sometimes be overlooked until it becomes unavoidable. From my perspective, both attorneys and judges benefit from a clear understanding of what competency means, how it is evaluated, and how these evaluations can be used effectively in court.
What Competency Really Means in Practice
Competency to stand trial is a legal determination. My role is not to decide guilt or innocence, but to provide the court with an evidence-based opinion about whether a defendant understands the charges, the courtroom process, and can meaningfully assist their attorney. In my evaluations, I focus on whether the defendant meets the statutory requirements for competency, grounding my findings in structured interviews, collateral review, and when necessary, psychological testing.
Red Flags I Have Seen in Court Cases
Over the years, I have seen many situations where competency concerns were first recognized by an attorney or judge. Some red flags include defendants who cannot explain the role of a judge or prosecutor, individuals who remain fixated on delusional beliefs about their case, or clients who are unable to communicate with their lawyer in a way that allows for meaningful preparation. When these signs appear, raising the issue of competency protects both the defendant’s rights and the integrity of the proceedings.
How I Approach Reports for the Court
I know that competency reports can sometimes feel overly clinical. When I write them, I work to ensure they are clear, legally relevant, and directly tied to the statutory prongs. I explain not just the diagnosis or observed symptoms, but how those symptoms affect the defendant’s ability to understand the proceedings and assist in their defense. I also provide recommendations when restoration is possible, which can help guide next steps for both attorneys and the court.
Practical Guidance I Share with Attorneys and Judges
For attorneys, I often recommend requesting an evaluation as soon as doubts arise, rather than waiting until trial is imminent. I also encourage attorneys to read CST reports carefully, paying attention to the logic of the evaluator’s conclusions. For judges, I emphasize the importance of looking for clear connections between the clinical findings and the legal criteria. A report that simply lists symptoms without tying them to the statutory framework is incomplete and should be challenged.
Why Competency Matters to Me
Competency to stand trial is not a minor procedural question; it is fundamental to due process. From my perspective, ensuring that a defendant can understand what is happening and can meaningfully participate in their case protects the fairness of the system itself. My goal in every evaluation is to provide the court with clear, reliable information so that attorneys and judges can make informed decisions that uphold justice.
By sharing these insights, I hope to make the evaluation process more transparent and useful for those working in the courtroom. If you are in need of such an assessment, I encourage you to review my background and credentials, and make an appointment today.