RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Survey of Forensic Mental Health Experts on <em>Pro Se</em> Competence After <em>Indiana v. Edwards</em>
JF Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
JO J Am Acad Psychiatry Law
FD American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
SP 565
OP 570
VO 39
IS 4
A1 Kaufman, Andrew R.
A1 Knoll, James L.
A1 Way, Bruce B.
A1 Leonard, Cecilia
A1 Widroff, Jacob
YR 2011
UL http://jaapl.org/content/39/4/565.abstract
AB In Indiana v. Edwards (2008) 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), but provided little guidance for the trial court judge. This survey of forensic mental health experts studied potential PSC criteria. Sixty-eight (22.7%) forensic evaluators replied. Three McGarry criteria were reported as requiring a much higher standard for PSC: to appraise the available legal defenses (45.6%), to plan a legal strategy (51.5%), and to question and challenge witnesses (44.1%). Sixty percent agreed that standby counsel should be mandatory. Respondents opined that average abilities were sufficient for intelligence (77.9%), literacy (69.1%), and verbal ability (70.6%) were sufficient. PSC examiners may wish to assess appraisal of available legal defenses, planning a legal strategy, and questioning and challenging witnesses for a higher standard than CST. Evaluators should also assess the defendant's willingness to accept standby counsel (SBC) and the defendant's motivation for attempting a pro se defense.