Legal and clinical issues regarding the pro se defendant

Guidance for practitioners and policy makers

Christina L. Patton, E. Lea Johnston, Colleen M. Lillard, Michael J Vitacco

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Defendants who attempt to represent themselves, or proceed pro se, make up less than 1% of felony cases. However, when the issue of competency to proceed pro se arises, it can present interesting questions and challenges not only for the defendant, but also for others involved with the trial process. In Indiana v. Edwards (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court permitted states to impose a higher standard of competency for defendants who wish to proceed to trial without an attorney than for defendants who stand trial with representation. States have responded by adopting a patchwork of different, and often vague, competency standards. The current paper describes states' differing responses to Edwards, courts' efforts to ensure the constitutionality of those standards, and extant research on the legal standards and guidelines that should apply to forensic evaluators. Drawing upon this body of law and commentary, this article distills principles to guide evaluations of defendants' pro se competency. To facilitate discussion, this article utilizes three case studies involving defendants with severe mental illness, antisocial personality disorder, and communication impediments unrelated to mental illness. The analysis of these case studies illustrates the application of guiding principles and demonstrates how to distinguish impairments relevant to pro se competence from those that may be legally irrelevant yet still present significant fairness or efficiency concerns.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)196-211
Number of pages16
JournalPsychology, Public Policy, and Law
Volume25
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2019

Fingerprint

Administrative Personnel
mental illness
Antisocial Personality Disorder
Lawyers
constitutionality
personality disorder
Mental Competency
fairness
Supreme Court
Communication
Guidelines
efficiency
Law
communication
present
evaluation
Research

Keywords

  • Competence to proceed
  • Forensic assessment
  • Forensic evaluation
  • Pro se competence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Law

Cite this

Legal and clinical issues regarding the pro se defendant : Guidance for practitioners and policy makers. / Patton, Christina L.; Johnston, E. Lea; Lillard, Colleen M.; Vitacco, Michael J.

In: Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 25, No. 3, 01.08.2019, p. 196-211.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Patton, Christina L. ; Johnston, E. Lea ; Lillard, Colleen M. ; Vitacco, Michael J. / Legal and clinical issues regarding the pro se defendant : Guidance for practitioners and policy makers. In: Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 2019 ; Vol. 25, No. 3. pp. 196-211.
@article{275db18d24c64915a2b2c2f4681e30e1,
title = "Legal and clinical issues regarding the pro se defendant: Guidance for practitioners and policy makers",
abstract = "Defendants who attempt to represent themselves, or proceed pro se, make up less than 1{\%} of felony cases. However, when the issue of competency to proceed pro se arises, it can present interesting questions and challenges not only for the defendant, but also for others involved with the trial process. In Indiana v. Edwards (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court permitted states to impose a higher standard of competency for defendants who wish to proceed to trial without an attorney than for defendants who stand trial with representation. States have responded by adopting a patchwork of different, and often vague, competency standards. The current paper describes states' differing responses to Edwards, courts' efforts to ensure the constitutionality of those standards, and extant research on the legal standards and guidelines that should apply to forensic evaluators. Drawing upon this body of law and commentary, this article distills principles to guide evaluations of defendants' pro se competency. To facilitate discussion, this article utilizes three case studies involving defendants with severe mental illness, antisocial personality disorder, and communication impediments unrelated to mental illness. The analysis of these case studies illustrates the application of guiding principles and demonstrates how to distinguish impairments relevant to pro se competence from those that may be legally irrelevant yet still present significant fairness or efficiency concerns.",
keywords = "Competence to proceed, Forensic assessment, Forensic evaluation, Pro se competence",
author = "Patton, {Christina L.} and Johnston, {E. Lea} and Lillard, {Colleen M.} and Vitacco, {Michael J}",
year = "2019",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/law0000197",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "196--211",
journal = "Psychology, Public Policy, and Law",
issn = "1076-8971",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Legal and clinical issues regarding the pro se defendant

T2 - Guidance for practitioners and policy makers

AU - Patton, Christina L.

AU - Johnston, E. Lea

AU - Lillard, Colleen M.

AU - Vitacco, Michael J

PY - 2019/8/1

Y1 - 2019/8/1

N2 - Defendants who attempt to represent themselves, or proceed pro se, make up less than 1% of felony cases. However, when the issue of competency to proceed pro se arises, it can present interesting questions and challenges not only for the defendant, but also for others involved with the trial process. In Indiana v. Edwards (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court permitted states to impose a higher standard of competency for defendants who wish to proceed to trial without an attorney than for defendants who stand trial with representation. States have responded by adopting a patchwork of different, and often vague, competency standards. The current paper describes states' differing responses to Edwards, courts' efforts to ensure the constitutionality of those standards, and extant research on the legal standards and guidelines that should apply to forensic evaluators. Drawing upon this body of law and commentary, this article distills principles to guide evaluations of defendants' pro se competency. To facilitate discussion, this article utilizes three case studies involving defendants with severe mental illness, antisocial personality disorder, and communication impediments unrelated to mental illness. The analysis of these case studies illustrates the application of guiding principles and demonstrates how to distinguish impairments relevant to pro se competence from those that may be legally irrelevant yet still present significant fairness or efficiency concerns.

AB - Defendants who attempt to represent themselves, or proceed pro se, make up less than 1% of felony cases. However, when the issue of competency to proceed pro se arises, it can present interesting questions and challenges not only for the defendant, but also for others involved with the trial process. In Indiana v. Edwards (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court permitted states to impose a higher standard of competency for defendants who wish to proceed to trial without an attorney than for defendants who stand trial with representation. States have responded by adopting a patchwork of different, and often vague, competency standards. The current paper describes states' differing responses to Edwards, courts' efforts to ensure the constitutionality of those standards, and extant research on the legal standards and guidelines that should apply to forensic evaluators. Drawing upon this body of law and commentary, this article distills principles to guide evaluations of defendants' pro se competency. To facilitate discussion, this article utilizes three case studies involving defendants with severe mental illness, antisocial personality disorder, and communication impediments unrelated to mental illness. The analysis of these case studies illustrates the application of guiding principles and demonstrates how to distinguish impairments relevant to pro se competence from those that may be legally irrelevant yet still present significant fairness or efficiency concerns.

KW - Competence to proceed

KW - Forensic assessment

KW - Forensic evaluation

KW - Pro se competence

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065981104&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85065981104&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/law0000197

DO - 10.1037/law0000197

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 196

EP - 211

JO - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

JF - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

SN - 1076-8971

IS - 3

ER -