Author: Randy

Indiana v. Edwards (Supreme Court, 2008): The Supreme Court determined the ability for a defendant to represent himself and conduct his own trial is a different standard than being competent to stand trial. The Court may determine a defendant is competent to stand trial, however incompetent regarding their ability to represent themselves; thereby “forcing” the defendant to accept representation (Typically referred to as “standby counsel”). The standard to represent oneself would be determined by the trial judge in each specific case. The case distinguished the standard by which a defendant is able to waive rights and end trial proceedings and the ability to conduct trial proceedings on their own (Pro Se/Per). The Dusky Standard hinges on the premise a defendant is able to “Consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” however if there is no attorney to consult the standard changes. The right to represent oneself at trial is qualified by the trial Court’s interest in preserving courtroom decorum, promoting the orderly presentation of evidence, questioning of witnesses, and the advancement of legal arguments. For the Court it was “Common Sense” a defendant’s mental illness may impair their ability to accomplish those tasks, the Court concluded, “A right self-representation at trial will not affirm the dignity of a defendant who lacks the mental capacity to conduct his defense without the assistance of counsel”. Furthermore, “No trial can be fair that leaves the defense to a man who is insane, unaided by counsel, and who by reason of his mental condition stands hopeless and alone before the court.” For these reasons, the Constitution allows trial courts to “Take realistic account of the particular defendant’s mental capacities by asking whether a defendant who seeks to conduct his own defense at trial is mentally competent to do so.” See also McKaskle v. Wiggins; Faretta v. California.

Cooper v. Oklahoma (Supreme Court, 1996): The Supreme Court ruled Oklahoma’s law allowing the State to try a defendant who is more likely than not incompetent was unconstitutional as it violated the Due Process Clause. The Court determined the burden of proof rests on the State, and the preponderance of the evidence (more weighty evidence) indicates the defendant is competent to proceed with trial.

Drope v. Missouri (Supreme Court, 1975): The Supreme Court held that any evidence of a defendant’s possible incompetence to stand trial must be addressed regardless of the stage of proceedings. The court found a number of factors may call for a competency evaluation: (1) Evidence of a defendant’s irrational behavior; (2) The defendant’s demeanor at trial; (3) Any prior medical opinion on the defendant’s competency. While all of these factors are relevant in determining further inquiry into competency, just one factor is sufficient to warrant further investigation.

Pate v. Robinson (Supreme Court, 1966): The Supreme Court determined the issues of competency can be raised at ANY point during criminal proceedings. In addition, the Court had an obligation to raise the question of competency after discovering evidence that would raise a “Bona fide doubt” regarding the defendant’s competence, regardless of whether the defense has raised the issue of competency or requested a competency evaluation. The court determined it would be a deprivation of due process to convict a defendant if they were, in fact, incompetent to stand trial; failure to opine competence if a doubt is raised is a failure to protect the defendant’s rights.

The 1961 Missouri case of a mentally ill defendant Wieter v. Settle further defined the Dusky Standard including, 

(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.

One of the first Federal cases linking competency with the U.S. Constitution was Youtsey v. United States (1899). Youtsey suffered from a seizure disorder and had been tried in absentia (Not being present at the event (trial)) for embezzlement. The case was eventually overturned by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as Youtsey’s memory and mind were impaired and he was incapable of appreciating his situation and intelligently advising his counsel in his own defense. The Court noted, “Does the mental impairment of the prisoner’s mind, if such there be, whatever it is, disable him . . . from fairly presenting his defense, whatever it may be, and make it unjust to go on with his trial at this time, or is he feigning to be in that condition”.