1. 1
Monika Marjanovic
10/02/13
PSY/LAW 370
According to Costanzo and Krass (2012), competency to stand trial (CST) is defined as
the defendant’s ability to understand and be able to have conversations with his/her lawyer, as
well as being able to understand the court’s processes such as: what charges are being brought
up, why they are being brought up, what is the evidence against the defendant, who the witnesses
are, etc. (165). In order to be considered incompetent the defendant must not be able to even
learn how the court works. For instance, Costanzo and Krass (2012) give an example of the
defendant who was not born and raised in the US and therefore may not understand how the
criminal justice system works. The said defendant’s ability to learn how the criminal justice
system works is not impaired and therefore this defendant would be competent to stand
trial. (165). According to Costanzo and Krass (2012), every defendant is presumed to be
competent to stand trial; however if there is any reason to believe the defendant may be
incompetent, the judge is to order the CST test.They state that it is still the “burden of the
defense” to prove that the defendant is incompetent. (166). Although CST is commonly used in
trials, this technique is not perfect. The pros of CST is that it provides the defendant a chance at
getting helps vs. just being punished, and the con of the CST is that it does not recognizing all
mentally ill patients as incompetent to stand trial.
CST is more of a legal technique than a psychological one. This leaves the future of the
defendant up to the ability of his/her attorney and himself/herself to prove incompetency at the
trial. One critique of CST is that it is so much trial oriented that it may leave individuals who are
mentally ill responsible for their crimes and considered competent to stand trial. What is even
more concerning is the fact that trial decisions in this country are made in two ways: by law and

2. 2
by precedent. This means that if one judge finds one defendant competent to stand trial, another
judge may look at another case, believing that it is similar enough, and consider that defendant
also competent to stand trial. In reality, this other defendant may be very ill. In fact, it is quite
possible that the defendant in the first case that set the precedent was also very mentally ill. Since
CST requirements are not too strict, they do not allow all mentally ill patients to be considered
incompetent to stand trial leaving many of them in prison, when they truly need psychological
help. Although CST evaluations are completed by forensic psychologists, much of the trial
deciding is still left up to the judge and to the ability of the defense attorney to prove that his/her
client is incompetent to stand trial.
US Supreme Court decided on CST standards in 1960’s case Dusky v. United States. In
this case, the trial court had found Dusky competent to stand trial and sentenced Dusky to 45
years in prison despite the fact that his evaluation stated that he had schizophrenia and that due to
his illness he could not assist in his defense. The trial court decision in this case shows that trials
can make mistakes regarding CST. Fortunately, in Dusky v. United States, the Supreme Court
heard this case and sided with the defense and according to Krass and Costanzo (2012) formed a
new standard for CST. (165). It is important to understand, however, that the Supreme Court
only tries so many cases and in fact does not try the majority of the cases, which leaves the
question of how many cases there are there today where the trial court has found the defendant
competent to stand trial that would have been reversed or remanded had the Supreme Court
given the writ of certiorari.
While the CST is more of a legal technique than a psychological one, CST evaluations do
provide some defendants a chance at getting the help they need outside of prison. In 1998,
Russell Weston Jr. also known as the “Capital Shooter”, shot several Capitol policeman because

3. 3
of his belief that he is preventing the US from a decease carried by cannibals, caused by his
paranoid schizophrenia. Due to existence of CST evaluations, Russel Weston Jr. was found
incompetent to stand trial and since has not been restored to stand trial; Russel Weston Jr. is still
receiving psychological treatment. (Costanzo and Krass 2012, 164). In this case, CST is
providing the defendant a psychological treatment needed. Since all individuals have certain
constitutional rights, including the right to waive council, the Supreme Court had to decide on
the overlap of CST and waving council.
In Indiana vs. Edwards, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether mentally ill
patients are capable of waving council.According to Costanzo and Krass (2012), waving council
requires the individual to have a certain amount of understanding regarding what waving council
means for his/her case. (168). In this case, the court has decided that in fact the standard for
waving council for mentally ill patients is much higher. (168). While defendants who undergo
CST evaluations are certainly being defended and helped, not all of the defendants who are
incompetent restore their competency for the trial.
Jackson vs. Indiana was a 1972 case which, according to Costanzo and Krass (2012) , brought on
a new standard that defendants who do not restore competency could be confined only for the
time that is necessary to determine if the defendant could be returned to competency “in the
foreseeable future”. (172). The meaning of the term “foreseeable future” is that the it can be
believed that the defendant will get better soon(within weeks, or months). This decision allows
the defendants more freedom. It officially designs CST evaluations as a tool to help protect
defendants who are incompetent to stand trials. Having a limit on how long a defendant should
be confined allows for the confinement not to become a punishment itself. It is true that in some
cases, the confinement may be just as long as or even longer than the prison sentence would have

4. 4
been for the crime;however, according to Costanzo and Krass (2012), as a result of Jackson
vs. Indiana decision, many states now limit confinement between 4-18 months. (172). Once the
CST restoration is complete, the government still looks out for the defendant as much as possible
without infringing on his/her basic human rights. According to Costanzo and Krauss, if the
defendant is unable to be restored to competency, involuntary civil commitment may occur but
only under the following circumstances: The person must be either “gravely disabled”(not being
able to take care of himself/herself) or “imminently dangerous to self or others” meaning they
pose such a threat that they must be committed. (173). Once the person is committed, there is
still the issue of medication. The court has tried to answer the question of when it is acceptable to
forcefully medicate an individual through several cases. According to Krauss and Costanzo
(2012) , the only time an individual can be forced to take medication is when the individual is a
danger to himself/herself and/or to the society, and also when it is in the “government interest.”
The meaning of the term “in the government interest” can be debated.
Phd. Muller and Phd. While(2007), conduct a research evaluating the effectiveness of medical
treatment in restoring competency and specifically the effectiveness of Fitness Game. They state
that the most common way of restoring competency to stand trial is by using anti-psychotic
medications. Phd Muller and Phd While, in their study claim that although the medications may
restore competency, there is not enough research completed to claim that they can specifically
reduce trial competency. (893) One must realize that trial competency is more than just
psychosis. An individual may be very ill, but still be considered competent due to the fact that
he/she would be able to learn about the process of the court. Phd Muller and Phd While (2007)
state that there is a relationship between those individuals who are mentally ill and those who are
found incompetent. They however, also mention that the court of law does not function the same

5. 5
way psychologists do. (893)They explain that psychologists use what is called DSM-IV TR,
meanwhile that document is not used by the court. (893) Psychologists diagnose the illness, but
the court of law still has to follow the precedent and the evidence presented. The court is the
place ruled by law and by the ability of the attorneys to prove why their representation should
win. Specifically in CST cases, the people/the state has to prove that the crime committed is so
horrifying that it must have the individual who has committed it in prison. Meanwhile, the
attorney of the individual who has committed the crime needs to prove that his/her client is not
capable of understanding the crime and/or able to even learn the process of the court.
In their study, Phd. Muller and Phd. While (2007), also examine ways in which defendants are
being restored to trial competency. Since the court has decided that defendants may not be given
medication forcefully except under certain circumstances discussed earlier, the facilities have
come up with different ways of restoring the defendants to trial. As Phd.Muller and Phd. While
look into the different ways of restoring the defendants to trial competency, they conclude that
very little is known about these new methods. (893). They state that although a few studies have
tried to look into the effective ways of restoring defendants to trial competency, years later it is
still tough to find that perfect balance and understanding between the psychological and lawful
part of competency to stand trial. (894) Another interesting study that has been done regarding
CST does not involve the restoration methods, but instead it involves the agreement between
experts on using CST and legal issues regarding it. The study was done by Matthew Large, Olav
Nielssen, and Gordon Elliot in 2009. Large, Nielssen, and Gordon (2009) state that experts did
not agree on much regarding FST(Fitness to stand trial) unless it involves a serious crime such as
homicide. (449) Large, Nielssen, and Gordon (2009) also state that there was little to no bias
found between experts. (451).

6. 6
CST court cases and the studies done regarding CST demonstrate why CST is both a matter of
psychology and a matter of law. It is a matter of psychology because in order for CST
evaluations to exist, our society needs experts who will diagnose and attempt to treat the
defendant. And it is a matter of law because despite the diagnose, and the treatment, our society
still needs lawyers to prove incompetency of the defendant.
References:
-Costanzo, Krauss. Forensic and Legal Psychology. 2012.
-Large, Neilssen, Gordon. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. May2009,
Reliability of psychiatric evidence in serious criminal matters: fitness to stand trial and the
defence of mental illness
-Mueller, Crystal; Wylie, A. Michael. Behavioral Sciences & the Law. Nov2007, Vol. 25 Issue
6, p891-900. 10p. DOI:10.1002/bsl.775.
Examining the effectiveness of an intervention designed for the restoration of competency to
stand trial.
http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=e046f940-e567-4c28-a9f9b3190068e5a5%40sessionmgr14&hid=6