Competency to Stand Trial There

Competency to Stand Trial

There should not be different standards of competency to stand trial for self-represented and attorney-represented clients. On the contrary, competency refers to a minimum legal threshold under which a defendant should not be placed in jeopardy of a criminal conviction. The Dusky court established this standard, which requires three basic components: (1) the present ability to consult with his attorney and reasonably understand that consultation; (2) a rational understanding of the proceedings; and (3) a factual understanding of the proceedings. The Godinez court refused to expand upon Dusky's test. In fact, it explained that the ability to consult with counsel is not a requirement to consult with counsel. Furthermore, it explained that the standard for competency, or actually for insanity, is consistent throughout the criminal process, regardless of the particular decisions to be made by the defendant at each individual stage.

One of those decisions is the decision whether or not to have counsel. In addition, under Drope v. Missouri, trial courts already have an obligation to conduct competency hearings when they believe that a defendant may not be competent to stand trial.

As easy and logical as it is to assert that represented and non-represented individuals should have to meet the same standards of competency to stand trial, one must recognize that competency and the choice to represent oneself are negatively correlated. The fact is that many defendants who choose to represent themselves may have an impairment which the casual observer would believe would prevent them from being declared competent to stand trial. However, even facially neutral laws do not ignore this fact. The Drope decision requires courts to investigate competency where it is called into question, and there is no rule of law prohibiting the court from using a defendant's decision to represent himself as evidence of a defendant's incompetence. However, though the two are inversely related, the majority of defendants who choose to represent themselves are competent. In fact, given the fact that many public defenders offices are extremely overworked and staffed by neophyte lawyers, a well-educated defendant may be better able to represent himself than a court-appointed attorney. Furthermore, competency is only the threshold requirement for one standing trial without an attorney; a trial court must also find that a defendant's waiver of trial counsel was both knowing and voluntary.

It is clear that Mr. Moran met the legal standard for competency. Because of concerns about his competency, likely prompted by Moran's suicide attempt, the trial court had Moran examined by two psychiatrists. Both doctors found him competent. The dissent attempted to question Moran's competency by citing notes one of the psychiatrist had made, which suggested that Moran's guilt may have hampered his ability to give his best efforts towards his defense. Given that Moran was responsible for the senseless deaths of four people, the fact that he felt guilt and was somewhat impaired by it was probably more indicative of mental competency than if he had not felt guilt. Competency to stand trial cannot and should not be confused with competency to escape a guilty verdict.