Competency to Stand Trial: Legal Standards in the Film Nuts

Introduction

The 1987 film Nuts is a portrayal based on a true story about a woman from a well-to-do family who becomes a high-priced prostitute and is charged with first-degree manslaughter when she kills a violent client. Ostensibly in an effort to protect their daughter — and themselves — from the public embarrassment of a trial, the woman's parents encourage therapeutic institutional intervention. In the hearing to determine the woman's ability to stand trial, the woman, stunningly played by Barbra Streisand, insists that she is sane and fights — quite literally — for her right to stand trial. A reluctant, court-appointed attorney played by Richard Dreyfuss eventually comes to believe that his client is sane and able to contribute to her own defense. He is able to look past her combative exterior and comes to understand and support her through both his personal convictions and his trenchant legal defense.

Two psychiatrists have declared the woman incompetent, and she refuses to submit to any additional psychiatric testing — which would have constituted a third opportunity to strengthen her position that she is perfectly able to stand trial. During the hearing, the defendant's attorney conducts such penetrating cross-examinations that the presiding judge comes to align his view of the testifying psychiatrists with that of the woman whose competency is being examined. This paper discusses several relevant legal definitions, legal standards, states of mind, and time frames as presented in the film and through a review of the literature.

Relevant Legal Definitions

Competency to Stand Trial

The test for competency to stand trial goes beyond a defendant being oriented to time and place and having some recollection of events (Roesch et al., 2004, p. 1). The test is whether the defendant is, at present, sufficiently able to consult with an attorney in a manner that demonstrates a reasonable level of understanding, and whether the defendant has a factual and rational understanding of the charges brought against him or her (Roesch et al., 2004, p. 1).

One school of thought holds that the psycholegal abilities of a defendant must be considered in context. Forensic psychologists with this perspective argue that whether a defendant shows evidence of severe disturbance should be treated as a threshold issue. The more important concern in a contextual determination is whether that severe disturbance — in this particular defendant, facing specific charges based on existing evidence and anticipating the demands of the attorney-client relationship — creates a situation in which the defendant is unable to rationally assist his or her attorney, or is unable to comprehend the nature of the proceedings and their likely outcome (Roesch, 2004, p. 79).

The Supreme Court, however, does not uphold a contextual determination of competency to stand trial, instead holding that there must be a single standard of competency regardless of the psycholegal skills required of a defendant in any given trial. A defendant found incompetent to stand trial is held in a mental institution until he or she may be found competent, with reevaluation occurring at regular intervals determined by statute — until a determination is made that the person's condition is highly unlikely to change.

Insanity

The standard for a plea of cognitive insanity is that the defendant must not have known the nature or quality of the act, due to mental impairment or defect at the time the act was committed — or, if the defendant did understand the nature and quality of the act, that he or she did not know it was wrong. Volitional insanity (irresistible impulse) is another form of insanity said to occur when a defendant is able to distinguish right from wrong but became incapable of controlling his or her actions due to mental disease or defect. Generally, volitional insanity is considered to be transitory in nature.

Incapacity

Incapacity is defined as the absence of legal ability, competence, or qualifications. The inherent unreliability of testimony given by psychiatrists and psychologists — which can result in the commitment of individuals for periods longer than a prison sentence, for instance — requires a standard of proof that goes beyond the current standard of clear and convincing evidence. That this situation constitutes a genuine problem was borne out in the film by the faulty psychiatric reports filed about the defendant. Any standard used to establish incapacity should "ensure that only the truly dangerous are incapacitated" (Riley, 2003, p. 1).

Civil Commitment

Civil or involuntary commitment takes place when an individual is placed in a psychiatric ward or hospital against his or her will, but in compliance with mental health laws that stipulate time limitations and reevaluation at fixed intervals. The process is a stop-gap measure intended to address the urgent need for a psychiatric evaluation. If hospitalization is to continue, a court order must be obtained. Furthermore, an involuntarily hospitalized individual may challenge the commitment by writ of habeas corpus and is entitled to legal counsel. Involuntary commitment is used for observation, containment of danger, and treatment of illness.

Is Competency Overrated?

The film's story arc and Streisand's portrayal of the disturbed woman made it difficult to be entirely certain of the character's state of mind. Because the character functions as such an effective protagonist, the audience is strongly inclined to believe in her sanity and to want her to prevail. The character is feisty, stingingly critical, and skillfully exploits the psychological vulnerabilities of those around her. The constellation of behaviors the character exhibits points to a person who is in control of her faculties, but has a hostile orientation toward others and rejects the rules and morality of the society in which she lives.

The moment at which it becomes clear that she must surely be sane occurs during the scene in the lock-up facility where the protagonist introduces her attorney to a woman she identifies as a "psychiatrist" — completely deceiving him — followed by the scene in which she protests the attorney's invasion of her privacy in his efforts to obtain clothing for her to wear at the hearing. That situation could have gone seriously wrong, but the defendant lowered her voice as she pressed her point. She was clearly very angry — feeling at once betrayed and violated — but she recognized that there were larger stakes than her pride. This represented clarity of mind, an awareness of the reality of her situation, and the ability to contribute to her own defense by making reasoned decisions.

This demonstration of her capacity to govern her emotions and curb her habitual outspokenness — as well as her gradually strengthening efforts to do the same in the courtroom — earned her some credibility with her attorney and with the judge. It was in her best interest to maintain that she was competent, because it was essential for her to be able to relay the circumstances that led her to kill the man who turned on her.