Juveniles' competency to stand trial: wading through the rhetoric and the evidence.
Author | Sanborn, Joseph B., Jr. |
-
THE PROBLEM: MINIMAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BEING COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL IN CRIMINAL COURT II. THE ISSUE: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JUVENILE DEFENDANTS AND COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL A. THE APPLICATION OF DUSKY TO DEFENDANTS IN JUVENILE COURT B. DUSKY AND COMPETENCY STANDARDS FOR DEFENDANTS IN JUVENILE COURT C. MENTALLY CHALLENGED DEFENDANTS FOUND COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL IN JUVENILE COURT D. PROVISIONS FOR DEFENDANTS FOUND INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL IN JUVENILE COURT E. DUSKY AND JUVENILE DEFENDANTS IN CRIMINAL COURT III. THE ADVOCACY: MILITATING TO PREVENT THE PROSECUTION OF JUVENILES IN CRIMINAL COURT A. THE CASE FOR JUVENILE ADJUDICATIVE INCOMPETENCY (JAI) B. GENERAL RESEARCH AND CONCLUSIONS ON JUVENILES' LEGAL ABILITIES C. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON JUVENILES' COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL D. THE CASE, SUCH AS IT IS: A SUMMARY OF THE JAI RESEARCH IV. THE OBSTACLE: SEVERAL PROBLEMS SURROUNDING THE CLAIM THAT JUVENILES ARE INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL A. DPS' FAULTY PREMISES ABOUT JUVENILES' COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL 1. That Competency to Stand Trial is Relative or That There Are Degrees of Competence 2. That Juveniles on Average Are Less Competent to Stand Trial Than Adults Means That All Juveniles Are Incompetent to Stand Trial 3. That Some or Most Juveniles of a Certain Age Are Actually Incompetent to Stand Trial Means All Juveniles of That Age Are Incompetent to Stand Trial 4. That Competency to Stand Trial is About Maturity of Judgment and Perfect Defendants 5. That Competency to Stand Trial Requires Belief in the Ideals of the Adversary Process 6. That Competency to Stand Trial Requires Defendants Share DPs' Values and Perspectives 7. That Competency to Stand Trial Matters Less in Juvenile Court Than in Criminal Court B. METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS IN THE DPs' STUDY OF JUVENILES' COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL 1. Competency to Stand Trial Research Tests Do Not Actually Measure Competency 2. Examining a Defendant's Miranda Comprehension Does Not Determine Competency to Stand Trial 3. Examining Only Delinquents, Especially Only Those Detained, Does Not Yield a Representative Juvenile Competency to Stand Trial Score 4. The Lack of a Standard Measure of Adults' Competency to Stand Trial Compromises Research V. THE ULTIMATE PROBLEMS IN THE DPS' STUDY OF JUVENILE COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL A. THE LACK OF A JUVENILE COMPETENCY PROBLEM B. THE DPS' PROPOSED SOLUTION IS WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM 1. The DPs' Solution 2. The DPs' Proposal Fails on Its Merits 3. The DPs' Solution Is Inappropriate 4. The DPs' Solution Is Unnecessary VI. THE CONCLUSION: MYTHS DISPELLED AND LESSONS LEARNED CONCERNING JUVENILES' COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL A. MYTHS DISPELLED 1. Massive Numbers of Juvenile Defendants Are Incompetent to Stand Trial 2. Competency to Stand Trial Is Relative, Group-Determined, and Associated with Punishment B. Lessons Learned 1. Ideology and Not a Constitutional Right Is Driving Research Regarding Competency to Stand Trial 2. Juveniles Need Classroom Instruction on Their Rights 3. Juvenile Defendants Require Extra Attention from Defense Counsel. I. THE PROBLEM: MINIMAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BEING COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL IN CRIMINAL COURT
Historically, the right to be competent to stand trial has required little in a defendant's wherewithal. A finding of competency to stand trial requires little, probably because the more that it demands, the fewer the defendants that will answer for their crimes. Even so, the right to be competent to stand trial is considered fundamental. Only if defendants are competent can a meaningful exercise of their trial-related rights occur. For example, an incompetent defendant is unable to assist counsel, to testify, or to effectively confront and cross-examine accusers, and perhaps unable to receive a fair trial.
The competency standard was announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1960 in Dusky v. United States. (1) To be competent to stand trial, defendants must have a rational and factual understanding of the nature of the proceedings against them, and an ability to consult with a lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. (2) Thus, if defendants are basically aware that they are on trial for committing crimes--and could be headed to probation, jail, or prison--and can communicate with their attorneys about those offenses, they are likely to be found competent. Typically, a serious mental illness or an advanced stage of mental retardation would have to exist for a defendant to be incompetent to stand trial. Appellate courts have upheld the criminal prosecutions of mentally ill and retarded defendants who have been diagnosed as neurotic, psychotic, or paranoid schizophrenic, including those with low IQs. (3) Even those with amnesia have been found competent to stand trial. (4)
-
THE ISSUE: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JUVENILE DEFENDANTS AND COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL
Regardless of its limits, the Dusky standard applies to criminal court. Both juvenile and adult defendants in criminal court certainly have a constitutional right to be competent to stand trial. (5) However, it is not as certain whether Dusky applies equally to juvenile court, and whether Dusky standards should differ for juvenile defendants in criminal court.
-
THE APPLICATION OF DUSKY TO DEFENDANTS IN JUVENILE COURT
All appellate courts in recent times have held that youths have to be competent in order to face an adjudicatory hearing in the juvenile system. (6) In re Gault made a youth's competency relevant by granting juvenile defendants basic trial-related rights. (7) In re Gault has been used to recognize a due process or fundamental right to competency to stand trial in juvenile court. (8) This has occurred even when state statutes have been silent regarding competency to stand trial and juvenile court judges have been opposed to recognizing the right. (9)
Appellate courts have held that the right to counsel has little meaning if the juvenile is incompetent to stand trial, (10) and that counsel cannot be effective if youths are unable to communicate or to cooperate with their attorneys. (11) Moreover, the competency requirement ensures that the juvenile understands the nature of the charges, (12) and can prepare and present a defense, increasing the accuracy of the proceedings. (13) Competency is necessary to be able to confront and cross-examine witnesses, (14) and to be able to testify. (15) Even the right to be present at a hearing demands competency to stand trial. (16) Adjudicating a juvenile who is incompetent to stand trial violates due process requirements even if the court seeks rehabilitation. (17) For rehabilitation to be legitimate, the necessary precedent is a determination that a youth has violated the law. (18)
-
DUSKY AND COMPETENCY STANDARDS FOR DEFENDANTS IN JUVENILE COURT
Recently, several states have adopted formal positions regarding competency to stand trial in juvenile court. Nevertheless, twenty states continue to process defendants in juvenile court without a clearly and broadly applicable competency standard. (19) Thirteen states have mostly or completely transported Dusky or their criminal court provision on competency to stand trial to juvenile court. (20) Finally, eighteen jurisdictions have adopted specific standards on competency to stand trial in juvenile court, via either juvenile court statutes or court rules. (21)
The thirteen states that have relied upon Dusky or a criminal court statute in developing juvenile court standards have not created special criteria; four states have exceptions. For example, Arkansas law requires Dusky-level abilities and also a reliable episodic memory, the ability to think into the future and consider the impact of behavior, and verbal articulation and logical decision-making abilities. (22) Importantly, however, these capabilities are required only of defendants who are under the age of thirteen and who are charged with capital or first degree murder. Although these youths are prosecuted in juvenile court, failure to respond to the state's rehabilitation efforts can result in a life sentence.
Other exceptions include a recent ruling from the Iowa Court of Appeals that immaturity and intellectual capacity can lead to a finding of incompetency to stand trial, (23) and an opinion from the Michigan Court of Appeals that "competency evaluations should be made in light of juvenile, rather than adult, norms." (24) Similarly, Ohio appellate courts refer to the adult statute on competency to stand trial as applying to juvenile court, provided that "juvenile norms" are utilized. (25) These rulings appear to permit a "watering down" of Dusky standards for defendants in juvenile court.
The eighteen jurisdictions that have a statute or court rule for juvenile court tend to hold that competency to stand trial requires only an ability to understand the proceedings and to assist counsel. For example, Virginia's statute provides:
If the juvenile is otherwise able to understand the charges against him and assist in his defense, a finding of incompetency shall not be made based solely on any or all of the following: (i) the juvenile's age or developmental factors; (ii) the juvenile's claim to be unable to remember the time period surrounding the alleged offense, or (iii) the fact that the juvenile is under the influence of medication. (26) The only special consideration for juveniles among these jurisdictions can be found in four states. Florida's and Maryland's competency laws include a capacity to appreciate the charges, range of penalties, and adversarial nature of the process; to disclose pertinent facts to counsel; to display appropriate courtroom behavior; and to testify relevantly. (27) Louisiana holds that incompetency to stand trial can stem from immaturity. (28) Vermont's juvenile court rule mentions age and developmental maturity, mental illness, developmental disorders, any other disability, and "any other factor" that could affect competency in juvenile...
-
To continue reading
Request your trialCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.