Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • AAPL

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
  • AAPL
  • Alerts
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
OtherANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

A Pilot Survey of Trial Court Judges' Opinions on Pro Se Competence After Indiana v. Edwards

James L. Knoll, Cecilia Leonard, Andrew R. Kaufman and Bruce B. Way
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online December 2010, 38 (4) 536-539;
James L. Knoll
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cecilia Leonard
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew R. Kaufman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bruce B. Way
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

In Indiana v. Edwards, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a higher standard may be required for pro se competence (PSC) than for competence to stand trial (CST). However, the Court refrained from elaborating a specific standard. The trial judge is in the best position to make more fine-tuned mental capacity decisions. This pilot study surveyed trial judges' opinions about PSC to help forensic evaluators structure their assessments. Eighteen of 400 New York State trial judges surveyed replied. Trial judges regarded disorders of cognitive impairment (n = 10) and psychosis (n = 4) to be potentially limiting for PSC. Responses relating to which domains should be assessed were heterogeneous, but the most common were intellectual and analytic abilities (n = 10), legal knowledge/experience (n = 9), and language abilities (n = 8). Several judges listed factors that are not traditionally part of CST evaluations, such as having a rational reason for proceeding pro se and a willingness to accept the assistance of standby counsel.

  • American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
View Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online: 38 (4)
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
Vol. 38, Issue 4
December 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in recommending The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law site.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A Pilot Survey of Trial Court Judges' Opinions on Pro Se Competence After Indiana v. Edwards
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law web site.
Citation Tools
A Pilot Survey of Trial Court Judges' Opinions on Pro Se Competence After Indiana v. Edwards
James L. Knoll, Cecilia Leonard, Andrew R. Kaufman, Bruce B. Way
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Dec 2010, 38 (4) 536-539;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
A Pilot Survey of Trial Court Judges' Opinions on Pro Se Competence After Indiana v. Edwards
James L. Knoll, Cecilia Leonard, Andrew R. Kaufman, Bruce B. Way
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Dec 2010, 38 (4) 536-539;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Problem-Solving Court Policies on Cannabis Use
  • Prescribing for Women in Corrections
  • Evaluating Intellectual Disability after the Moore v. Texas Redux
Show more Analysis and Commentary

Similar Articles

Site Navigation

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive
  • Information for Authors
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts

Other Resources

  • Academy Website
  • AAPL Meetings
  • AAPL Annual Review Course

Reviewers

  • Peer Reviewers

Other Publications

  • AAPL Practice Guidelines
  • AAPL Newsletter
  • AAPL Ethics Guidelines
  • AAPL Amicus Briefs
  • Landmark Cases

Customer Service

  • Cookie Policy
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Order Physical Copy

Copyright © 2019 by The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law