Criminal defendants have a basic constitutional right to understand the nature of the proceedings against them and the consequences of the crimes they’ve been charged with. You can’t be tried or convicted if you're not competent to stand trial. This article explains what that means, the procedures for determining competency, and what happens after a defendant is found incompetent.
What’s the Difference Between Pleading Insanity and Being Found Incompetent to Stand Trial?
It’s important to understand that there’s a difference between insanity as a criminal defense and being incompetent to stand trial.
Insanity. When defendants plead insanity, they’re arguing that they weren’t responsible for crimes they committed because they were legally insane. (Under state or federal law, legal insanity generally means being unable to distinguish right from wrong or understand the nature and consequences of criminal acts.)
Incompetency. When defendants are found incompetent to stand trial, it means they don’t have the mental capacity to understand or participate in the criminal proceedings.
Defendants are not competent to stand trial if they:
- can’t understand the consequences of the proceedings, and
- don’t have the ability to assist their attorneys with the defense.
Mental illness is not the issue with either the insanity defense or competency. Defendants could be mentally ill but still understand what’s happening at trial and be able to assist in their defense.
Why Is a Defendant’s Mental Competence Important?
The U.S. Constitution guarantees everyone the right to a fair trial and due process of law. It’s not fair if the defendant doesn’t understand—and isn’t capable of understanding—the proceedings. That’s why criminal defendants can’t be tried or convicted while they’re mentally incompetent (although they can be charged with crimes in the first place).
Who Can Raise the Issue of Incompetency and When?
A defendant's competence to stand trial can come up at any point during the proceedings, before sentencing. Unlike the insanity defense—which only applies to the moment the crime was committed—the defendant’s mental capacity to participate in the trial is an ongoing issue.
The following people may raise the incompetency issue:
- the defendant or the defendant’s attorney
- the prosecuting attorney, or
- the trial judge.
When Are Mental Exams and Hearings Needed to Decide If Defendants Are Competent?
Generally, it’s up to the court to decide whether to order a psychiatric examination to evaluate a defendant’s competence, followed by a formal hearing on the issue. But there should be some evidence that raises doubts about the defendant’s ability to understand and participate in the proceedings. It’s not enough just to claim that the defendant is incompetent, but evidence could include the judge’s own observations of the defendant.
Some states require a mental exam and hearing when there’s information that raises reasonable or substantial doubts about the defendant’s fitness. Once those doubts have come up, some courts have found that defendants have a constitutional right to a full hearing on the issue, and their convictions won’t stand without one.
What If the Defendant Refuses to Cooperate With the Mental Exam?
The judge doesn’t need the defendant’s consent before ordering the mental exam. Sometimes, defendants refuse to cooperate and meet with the psychiatrist. When that happens, the examiner will write a report without directly speaking to the defendant, based on other available information. The court may consider that report, even without an in-person evaluation.
In some states (and in federal cases), judges may order that defendants be committed to a psychiatric facility for a limited time, so the exam can take place.
Who Decides If a Defendant Is Incompetent?
Competency is a legal question. While the parties can offer evidence (including expert testimony), the judge—not the psychiatrist who conducted the evaluation—will decide whether the defendant is fit to stand trial.
What Happens After a Defendant Is Found Incompetent to Stand Trial?
Once a judge has found that a defendant isn’t competent to stand trial, the law typically allows the defendant to be committed to a psychiatric facility for a reasonable period of time, so that mental health professionals can decide whether the defendant is likely to become fit for trial with treatment. The trial will continue when the judge finds that the defendant’s mental fitness has been restored.
Remember, mental competency for trial is not the same thing as pleading insanity, and incompetence does not absolve the defendant of responsibility for the crime.
In some cases, defendants might never be competent to stand trial. When that’s probably true, the judge may order civil proceedings to determine if the defendant should be committed to a psychiatric facility.
Questions for Your Lawyer
- My teenage son has ODD (oppositional defiant disorder). He distrusts all authority figures, and I’m afraid he wouldn’t cooperate with a defense attorney. Would his neurological problems support a finding of incompetence to stand trial? Would that be the best thing for him?
- My wife has been charged with felony vehicular manslaughter in connection with an accident. She’s 72 and has fairly serious memory problems, although doctors haven’t yet diagnosed Alzheimer’s. I’m concerned that she won’t be able to track what’s going on at her trial. Could she be found incompetent to stand trial based on his memory problems? And if she was, what would happen to her then? She’s not going to improve.
- My daughter has been declared incompetent to stand trial. Can doctors force her to take psychiatric drugs to restore her competency? And if so, will the jury be told that?
- My adult son, who’s severely autistic, was committed to a mental institution after being found incompetent to stand trial on felony charges. How long can they keep him there?