If you practice criminal law, chances are you’ve come across the phrase “competency to stand trial.” On paper, it sounds straightforward: can the defendant understand what’s going on in court and work with their attorney? But once you peek behind the curtain, you’ll see that these evaluations are anything but simple.
Here are a few challenges that forensic psychologists wrestle with—things worth keeping in mind the next time competency comes up in your case.
The Law vs. Clinical Reality
The law defines competency in narrow terms: the defendant must have a factual and rational understanding of the proceedings and be able to assist counsel. Easy, right? Not so fast. Mental health professionals think in diagnostic terms—schizophrenia, dementia, intellectual disability—and those labels don’t automatically answer the competency question. The evaluator’s job is to connect clinical symptoms to the legal standard, and that translation isn’t always neat.
Malingering Is Real
Some defendants have strong incentives to look worse off than they are. That’s why examiners use structured tests, behavioral observations, and cross-checking of records to sniff out exaggeration or feigned deficits. But here’s the rub: call malingering when it’s not there, and you risk overlooking a genuine mental illness; miss it when it is there, and the justice system stalls.
It’s a Moving Target
Competency isn’t permanent—it’s about the here and now. A defendant might be incompetent today but restored in a few weeks with treatment. Or, they might look fine in a straightforward case but struggle badly in one with complex evidence or legal strategy. That’s why evaluations are snapshots, not life sentences.
Attorneys Are Key Players
Lawyers often see sides of their client no one else does: communication style, decision-making, emotional swings. Sharing those insights with the evaluator can make the difference between a shallow report and one that truly captures whether your client can help you mount a defense.
The Practical Hurdles
Add in limited access to records, uncooperative defendants, language barriers, and resource shortages for restoration, and you’ve got a recipe for complexity. Evaluators must balance neutrality, ethics, and these very real-world barriers.
What This Means for You
Competency evaluations aren’t rubber stamps. They’re careful, nuanced assessments that bridge the courtroom and clinical science. As an attorney, you can make them work for you by:
- Supplying examiners with relevant background and observations.
- Remembering that competency isn’t the same as diagnosis or treatment needs.
- Using findings to shape strategy, whether that’s trial prep, plea discussions, or restoration planning.
At the end of the day, competency to stand trial is about fairness. When you understand the challenges evaluators face, you’re better positioned to advocate for your client and navigate the process with confidence.