Competencies in the Criminal Process

  • James R. P. Ogloff
  • Donald H. Wallace
  • Randy K. Otto


Because the Anglo-American criminal justice system is based on an adversarial approach, it is crucial that those involved in the legal process be able to participate competently. Therefore, procedures in the legal system have evolved to ensure that those individuals involved in it are competent. Competency decisions concern an individual’s capacities to understand and participate in legal proceedings. Courts have traditionally relied on mental health professionals to help determine whether an individual is competent to participate in legal proceedings. Nonetheless, discontent with the practices of mental health professionals in assessing competencies has been widely expressed.


Criminal Justice System Criminal Process Legal Standard Plea Bargain Competency Evaluation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Bar Association. (1989). Criminal justice mental health standards. Washington DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Bonnie, R.J. (1988). The dignity of the condemned. Virginia Law Review, 74, 1363–1391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978).Google Scholar
  4. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 237 (1969).Google Scholar
  5. Brakel, S.J., Parry, J., & Weiner, B.A. (Eds.). (1985). The mentally disabled and the law. Chicago: American Bar Foundation.Google Scholar
  6. Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532 (1897).Google Scholar
  7. Brandt, J. (1988). Malingered amnesia. In R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (pp. 65–83). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  8. Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936).Google Scholar
  9. Chavez v. United States, 656 F.2d 512 (9th Cir. 1981).Google Scholar
  10. Colorado v. Connelly, 107 S.Ct. 515 (1986).Google Scholar
  11. Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568 (1961).Google Scholar
  12. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975).Google Scholar
  13. Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).Google Scholar
  14. Ewing, C.P. (1987). Diagnosing and treating “insanity” on death row: Legal and ethical perspectives. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5, 175–185.Google Scholar
  15. Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979).Google Scholar
  16. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).Google Scholar
  17. Ford v. Wainwright, 106 S.Ct. 2595 (1986).Google Scholar
  18. Frendak v. U.S., 408 A.2d 364 (D.C. 1979).Google Scholar
  19. Frith’s Case, 22 How. St. Tr. 307 (1790).Google Scholar
  20. Goldberg, R.W. (1987). Competently evaluating competencies. Journal of Personality Assessment, 51, 480–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Golding, S.L., & Roesch, R. (1988). Competency for adjudication: An international analysis. In D. Weisstub (Ed.), Law and mental health: Vol. 4. International perspectives. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  22. Golding, S.L., Roesch, R., & Schreiber, J. (1984). Assessment and conceptualization of competency to stand trial: Preliminary data on the Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grisso, T. (1981). Juveniles waiver of rights: Legal and psychological competence. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grisso, T. (1986). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  25. Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971).Google Scholar
  26. Hathaway, S.R., & McKinley, J.C.A. (1940). A multiphasic personality schedule (Minnesota): I. Construction of the schedule. Journal of Psychology, 10, 249–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hazard, G.C., & Louisell, D.W. (1962). Death, the state, and the insane: Staying of execution. University of California-Los Angeles Law Review, 9, 381–405.Google Scholar
  28. Heilbrun, K.S., & McClaren, H.A. (1988). Assessment of competency for execution? A guide for mental health professionals. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 16, 205–216.Google Scholar
  29. Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637 (1976).Google Scholar
  30. Hupp, S.J. (1987). Ford v. Wainwright, statutory change and a new test for sanity: You can’t execute me, I’m crazy! Cleveland State Law Review, 35, 515–544.Google Scholar
  31. Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972).Google Scholar
  32. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938).Google Scholar
  33. LaFave, W.R., & Israel, J.H. (1985). Criminal procedure. St. Paul, MN: West.Google Scholar
  34. Lipsitt, P., Leios, D., & McGarry, A.L. (1971). Competency for trial: A screening instrument. American Journal of Psychiatry, 128, 105–109.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Martin v. Estelle, 546 F.2d 177 (5th Cir. 1977).Google Scholar
  36. McGarry, A.L., & Curran, W.J. (1973). Competency to stand trial and mental illness. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.Google Scholar
  37. McGarry, A.L., Curran, W.J., & Kenefick, D. (1968). Problems of public consultation in medicolegal matters: A symposium. American Journal of Psychiatry, 125, 42–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Melton, G.B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N.G., & Slobogin, C. (1987). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  39. Miller, R.D. (1988). Evaluation of and treatment for competency to be executed: A national survey and an analysis. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 16, 67–90.Google Scholar
  40. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978).Google Scholar
  41. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 481 (1966).Google Scholar
  42. Morse, S.J. (1978). Crazy behavior, morals, and science: An analysis of mental health law. Southern California Law Review, 51, 527–654.Google Scholar
  43. Morse, S.J. (1982). Reforming expert testimony: An open letter from the tower to the trenches. Law and Human Behavior, 6, 45–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mossman, D. (1987). Assessing and restoring competency to be executed: Should psychiatrists participate? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5, 397–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (1979).Google Scholar
  46. Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714 (1975).Google Scholar
  47. Parry, J. (1987). Involuntary confessions based on mental impairments. Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter, 11, 2–6.Google Scholar
  48. Pastroff, S.M. (1986). Eighth amendment: The constitutional rights of the insane on death row. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 77, 844–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966).Google Scholar
  50. Perr, I.N. (1978). The many faces of competence. In W.E. Barton & C.J. Sanborn (Eds.), Law and the mental health professions: Friction at the interface (pp. 211–233). New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
  51. Poythress, N.G. (1982). Concerning reform in expert testimony: An open letter from a practicing psychologist. Law and Human Behavior, 6, 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Radelet, M.L., & Barnard, G.W. (1986). Ethics and the psychiatric determination of competency to be executed. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 14, 37–53.Google Scholar
  53. Rees v. Payton, 384 U.S. 312 (1966).Google Scholar
  54. Roesch, R., & Golding, S. (1978). Legal and judicial interpretation of competency to stand trial. Criminology, 16, 420–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Roesch, R., & Golding, S. (1980). Competency to stand trial. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  56. Rosenberg, A.H., & McGarry, A.L. (1972). Competency for trial: The making of an expert. American Journal of Psychiatry, 128, 82–86.Google Scholar
  57. Saddler v. United States, 531 F.2d 83 (2d Cir. 1976).Google Scholar
  58. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971).Google Scholar
  59. Sarno, G.G. (1978). Compliance with federal constitutional requirement that guilty pleas be made voluntarily and with understanding, in federal cases involving allegedly incompetent state convicts. American Law Reports, 38, 238–359.Google Scholar
  60. Schacter, D.L. (1986). On the relation between genuine and simiulated amnesia. BehavioralSciences and the Law, 4, 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schoeller v. Dunbar, 423 F.2d 1183 (9th Cir. 1970). Scilig v. Eyman, 478 F.2d 211 (9th Cir. 1973).Google Scholar
  62. Shapiro, D.L. (1987). The improvement of forensic assessments. Contemporary Psychology, 32, 366–372.Google Scholar
  63. Slobogin, C. (1989). The “ultimate issue” issue. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7, 259–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Small, M.A. (1988). Performing competency to be executed evaluations: A psycholegal analysis for preventing the execution of the insane. Nebraska Law Review, 67, 718–734.Google Scholar
  65. Small, M.A., & Otto, R.K. (1989). Evaluations of competency to be executed: Legal contours and implications for assessment. Manuscript submitted for publication. Smith v. O’Grady, 312 U.S. 329 (1941).Google Scholar
  66. State v. Hayes, 389 A.2d 1379 (N.H. 1978). State v. McClendon, 103 Ariz. 103, 437 P.2d 421 (1968). Steadman, H.J. (1979). Beating a rap? Defendants found incompetent to stand trial. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  67. Tague v. Louisiana, 444 U.S. 469 (1980).Google Scholar
  68. Ward, B. (1986). Competency for execution: Problems in law and psychiatry. Florida State University Law Review, 14, 35–107.Google Scholar
  69. Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150 (1966).Google Scholar
  70. Wexler, D. (1981). Wechsler adult intelligence scalerevised. New York: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  71. Whalem v. U.S., 346 F.2d 812 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert, denied, 382 U.S. 862 (1965). Wilson v. United States, 392 F.2d 460 (1968).Google Scholar
  72. Wrightsman, L.S. (1987). Psychology and the legal system. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • James R. P. Ogloff
  • Donald H. Wallace
  • Randy K. Otto

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations