Competency to stand trial (CST) is one of the most frequently ordered forensic evaluations in the criminal justice system. Yet despite how common it is, many attorneys; on both sides of the courtroom, hold misunderstandings about what competency means and how forensic psychologists approach these evaluations. These misconceptions can create unrealistic expectations, missteps in case strategy, or frustration with the evaluation process.
Drawing on legal precedents and forensic practice guidelines, let’s explore five of the most common misconceptions.
1. Competency is the Same as Sanity
Competency and sanity are often conflated, but they answer entirely different legal questions. Competency addresses whether the defendant can participate meaningfully in the trial process today: do they understand the charges, the courtroom roles, and can they work rationally with their lawyer? Sanity (or criminal responsibility) looks backward in time: was the defendant suffering from a severe mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged offense, such that they could not appreciate the nature, quality, and wrongfulness of their actions?
This distinction matters because a defendant could be incompetent but sane (e.g., currently psychotic but not legally insane at the time of offense) or competent but insane (e.g., currently stabilized but psychotic during the alleged crime). Blurring these lines risks confusion in motions, strategy, and case law citations.
2. A Mental Illness Automatically Makes Someone Incompetent
It’s tempting to assume that the presence of a psychiatric diagnosis equals incompetence. In reality, the legal standard is functional, not diagnostic. Many individuals with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or intellectual disability are found competent because they retain enough factual and rational understanding to proceed. Conversely, a person with no formal diagnosis may be found incompetent if they are acutely delirious, severely cognitively impaired, or otherwise unable to engage in the trial process.
Evaluators focus less on labels and more on functional abilities: Can the defendant explain the charges? Do they understand possible pleas? Can they work with their attorney without being derailed by delusions or severe mood symptoms? This focus prevents “diagnosis equals incompetence” shortcuts that misrepresent the law.
3. The Evaluation is About Dangerousness
Another misconception is that competency evaluations are designed to answer whether someone is violent or a risk to the public. That’s not the case. Dangerousness may be relevant in bail hearings, risk assessments, or civil commitment, but competency is solely about trial-related abilities.
An incompetent defendant may pose no risk to anyone but cannot grasp courtroom proceedings. Conversely, a competent defendant may be violent but still able to understand charges and assist counsel. The law separates these issues to avoid muddying the waters; competency protects due process rights, not public safety assessments.
4. The Psychologist is an Advocate for One Side
Attorneys sometimes view the evaluator as “hired by” the other side, but competency evaluators are neutral experts appointed by the court (or, in private cases, retained for objective assessment). Our ethical obligation is to the court, not to the defense or prosecution.
That means reports may contain information helpful to one side or the other, but the goal is always objectivity. As emphasized in forensic psychology guidelines, evaluators must remain impartial, even if retained by counsel. Courts rely on neutral, evidence-based opinions; advocacy is the role of attorneys, not experts.
5. Restoration is Always Quick and Guarantee
Finally, many lawyers assume that if a defendant is found incompetent, restoration is automatic and brief. In truth, restoration outcomes vary widely. Some individuals respond well to medication and psychoeducation, regaining competency within weeks. Others may take months; or never regain it at all, especially if they have treatment-resistant psychosis, profound cognitive impairment, or severe developmental disability.
Texas law (Article 46B, Code of Criminal Procedure) places limits on restoration periods, often tied to the severity of the offense. If restoration fails, cases may result in civil commitment, dismissal, or alternative dispositions. Attorneys benefit from understanding these possibilities when advising clients and shaping plea or trial strategy.
Takeaway for Attorneys
Competency evaluations are not about diagnosis, dangerousness, or advocacy; they are about ensuring due process. By understanding what competency evaluations truly assess, attorneys can set realistic expectations, collaborate more effectively with forensic experts, and better serve their clients.