Abstract
Twenty trial court judges were surveyed to determine what information they considered pertinent in psychiatric examinations for competence. These judges showed a clear understanding of what they were asking for in ordering the examinations but also showed a significant tendency to use the competency exam to advise them about other issues in addition (e.g., dangerousness or the need for treatment). As a group the judges appeared to be eager for psychiatric input. Typical judges could be described as pragmatic in their views of psychiatry in the courtroom, having a relatively low level of expectation but a high degree of satisfaction with the psychiatric opinions they receive.
Footnotes
-
Dr. Owens is the Assistant Medical Director, Dr. Rosner is the Medical Director, and Ms. Harmon is the administrator of the Forensic Psychiatry Clinic for the Criminal and Supreme Courts, 100 Centre St., New York, NY 10013. Send reprint requests to Dr. Owens.
- Copyright © 1986, The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
