Competency to stand trial Free Essay Example, 2750 words

Legally, competence was first defined in court by the landmark case Dusky v. United States. , 362 U. S. 402 (1960). This landmark case established the minimal constitutional requirements for adjudicative competence. In order for a criminal case to be carried out, a defendant should have sufficient ability to consult with his lawyer with a sound degree of rational understanding and be able to comprehend the proceedings of the court (McGarry, 1973). The Dusky Standard was operationalized in 1961 when it was used in Wieter v. Settle case. In this case, several fictional elements of competency to stand trial were developed and they include (Otto, 2006): i. The defendant has the mental capacity to understand where he is in relation to place, time and things ii. The defendant’s elemental mental processes are such that he grasps that he is charged with a criminal offence in a Court of Law. iii. The defendant should be able to realize and understand that there is a judge on the bench iv. He should also realize that there is a prosecutor whose job is to convict him of the charge v. He should realize that he has a lawyer (either court appointed or self-employed) whose main purpose is to defend him against the charges vi. We will write a custom essay sample on Competency to stand trial or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/pageorder now The defendant should understand that he is expected to explain to his lawyer, to the best of his mental capacity, the details surrounding him at the time and place in which the crime was being committed. vii. The defendant should also understand that his case will be decided by a jury based on the evidence presented as to his innocence or guilt. Competence to waive rights and Competence to plead guilty Whitebread and Slobogin (2000) contend that over 90% of all cases in the United States are resolved by a plea of guilty which by itself contains a waiver of several vital rights that includes rights of being tried by a jury, the right to confront the accusers, and the right to avoid self-incrimination. However, the competency to stand trial and the competency to plead guilty are not one and the same. The U. S. court of Appeals, in Sieling v. Eyman (1973) adopted a standard that differentiate these two types of competencies and held that: a defendant lacks the competency to plead guilty if his mental faculties are significantly compromised in such a way that he cannot make a reasoned choice of alternatives afforded to him and he lacks the basic understanding of what he is pleading to. According to Ryba and Zapf (2011), a defendant’s competence to waive rights to counsel was determined in Godinez v.