Competency to Stand Trial: What It Means and How It Is Evaluated

4 days ago

18 min read

Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 11, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Competency to stand trial is the legal determination of whether a person charged with a criminal offense currently has the mental capacities needed to understand the proceedings and participate meaningfully in a defense. In American law, the central questions concern a defendant’s factual and rational understanding of the process and the capacity to consult with counsel. Competency is about the fairness of proceeding now. It does not establish whether the defendant committed the offense, whether a diagnosis is present, or what the defendant’s mental state was when the alleged act occurred.

The core U.S. formulation comes from Dusky v. United States (1960). Federal procedures are supplied by 18 U.S.C. § 4241. The specific statutory tests, evidentiary rules, professional roles, and procedural consequences differ across U.S. states and other legal systems. The discussion below explains the major American framework while distinguishing psychological examination from the court’s legal finding.

A competency evaluation usually integrates a focused forensic interview, review of relevant records, information from legal counsel and other sources, clinical and cognitive assessment where appropriate, and careful attention to the actual demands of the defendant’s case. The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law practice guideline emphasizes that the legally relevant capacities and functional limitations must guide the assessment. No single psychiatric diagnosis, symptom checklist, or numerical score decides the legal question.

What Does Competency to Stand Trial Mean?

Competency to stand trial, also called adjudicative competence or fitness to proceed, concerns the abilities required for a fair criminal adjudication. It is a functional and legally defined status assessed in relation to the current stage of proceedings. The word “stand” is historically familiar, but the problem extends to decisions and activities outside a full trial, including work with an attorney and, subject to the applicable law, pleading and other adjudicative stages.

Under Dusky, competency requires a sufficient present ability to consult with a lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, alongside factual and rational understanding of the proceedings. The term “rational” matters: repeating correct courtroom vocabulary or memorized facts may fail to demonstrate the capacity to apply that knowledge coherently to one’s own circumstances.

A defendant may understand that a prosecutor presents accusations, yet be unable to appreciate what the prosecution means in their own case. Someone may describe a plea bargain accurately while being unable to compare options because of severe, fixed beliefs that distort interpretation of the evidence. Conversely, having unusual beliefs, a psychiatric diagnosis, communication differences, or a low educational level does not by itself show incapacity. The examination asks how a particular feature affects a particular legal ability.

Factual understanding

Factual understanding refers to knowledge of the basic process: the nature of the charges, the roles of judge, prosecutor, defense counsel and possibly a jury, the distinction between plea options, and the possible consequences of proceedings. The evaluator investigates understanding in the defendant’s own words and at an appropriate level of linguistic and cognitive complexity. Inaccurate answers may arise from limited instruction, poor literacy, inadequate interpretation, anxiety or genuine functional impairment; the reason matters.

Rational understanding and appreciation

Rational understanding concerns the ability to interpret the proceedings and make sense of their personal significance. The evaluator examines whether the defendant can connect legal information to the case and consider explanations or advice in an adequately reality-based way. A person’s refusal to follow counsel’s strategy, an unpopular choice, or a belief that the system is unfair is not sufficient evidence of incompetence. Competent defendants may make choices that lawyers regard as unwise.

Ability to consult with counsel

A defendant must be able to communicate relevant facts, weigh counsel’s advice, discuss available options, and participate in developing a defense to the degree the applicable standard requires. Collaboration is an ability rather than a duty of obedience. An adversarial or distrustful relationship with an attorney warrants investigation of causes and effects, including whether communication is impaired by symptoms, disability, inadequate accommodation, or a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.

Why Does the Law Require Competency?

The requirement protects the integrity of criminal adjudication. A trial or plea cannot be fair if a person lacks the abilities needed to understand and participate in proceedings where liberty and other fundamental interests are at stake. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Pate v. Robinson (1966) and Drope v. Missouri (1975) explain the due-process obligation to address serious competency concerns. These cases focus on procedures and the constitutional protection against proceeding while incompetent.

Competency review also protects the legitimacy of decisions by the court and counsel. A defendant’s meaningful participation helps identify misunderstandings, present accurate information, and ensure that waivers and choices receive the legal scrutiny they require. Competency evaluation therefore serves a procedural question, not an inquiry into moral character or dangerousness.

Who Can Raise a Competency Concern, and When?

Concerns can be raised by defense counsel, the prosecution, or the court, depending on the jurisdiction. In federal prosecutions, 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a) permits a motion by the defendant or government counsel and allows the court to order a hearing on its own motion when there is reasonable cause to believe the defendant may be mentally incompetent under the statutory test. The federal statute also specifies periods in which the process may arise; state systems have their own procedures.

Examples of information warranting inquiry include a dramatic change in mental functioning, persistent inability to explain courtroom roles after an appropriate explanation, severe confusion about the charges, behavior suggesting an inability to communicate with counsel, or evidence from clinical history and observation that raises genuine questions about trial-related abilities. Such observations trigger a closer look; none is an automatic finding.

Drope explains why competency can remain a live issue throughout proceedings. A defendant’s condition may change with treatment, sleep loss, intoxication, withdrawal, illness, injury or escalating stress. Pate also shows that a judge should not rely solely on the appearance of composure in court when other substantial evidence raises concerns. When the applicable legal threshold is met, a hearing and evaluation process are required.

How Is Competency to Stand Trial Evaluated?

A professional evaluation begins with the referral question and the governing jurisdiction. The examiner identifies the precise legal criteria, what is known about the case, the purpose and authorized scope of the examination, and any restrictions on access to information. A criminal competency assessment is a focused forensic process rather than a routine therapy appointment. The AAPL guideline supplies a comprehensive professional framework, while the APA Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology address role clarity, impartiality, appropriate methods, limitations and fairness.

1. Clarifying the referral and explaining the forensic role

The examiner should explain who requested the evaluation, its purpose, the limits of confidentiality, the likely recipients of findings, and the difference between forensic examination and treatment. A court-ordered evaluator may be neutral in role even when a party initiated the request. Procedures for consent, compulsion, record access and disclosure vary by jurisdiction and court order.

2. Reviewing records and collateral information

The review may include charging documents, court orders, relevant clinical records, prior competency evaluations, school or disability records when relevant, and information from defense counsel or other people who know the defendant’s functioning. Records can reveal whether difficulties persist across settings, when they began, how they fluctuate, and how they relate to legal tasks. Collateral material itself requires source evaluation: reports may be incomplete, adversarial, stale or based on different circumstances.

Counsel’s observations often provide especially valuable information about how the defendant interacts during case preparation. The examiner should respect privilege and the limits of authorized disclosure, ask focused questions about functioning rather than defense secrets where possible, and report only information appropriate to the forensic task.

3. Conducting a competency-focused interview

Interviews typically explore courtroom knowledge, charges and possible outcomes, the roles of the participants, the ability to disclose and discuss relevant information, and the capacity to compare legal alternatives. Open-ended questions and requests for explanations in the person’s own words often expose the difference between rehearsed vocabulary and genuine comprehension. Evaluators may use hypothetical scenarios to assess reasoning while recognizing that performance on hypotheticals does not always match case-specific ability.

The examiner also observes attention, coherence, consistency, memory, comprehension, emotional regulation and communication during the meeting. These are behavioral observations that can inform a functional hypothesis. They are neither diagnoses nor proof of legal competence, and a short interview can miss variation in functioning across time and circumstances.

4. Assessing clinical, cognitive and communication factors

A mental-status examination can identify psychotic symptoms, severe mood disturbance, delirium, cognitive impairment or other problems relevant to understanding and participation. Intellectual disability, developmental differences, neurological conditions, hearing impairment and language barriers may call for specialized methods or accommodations. The relevant question remains whether the identified condition materially affects a legally required ability in the defendant’s circumstances.

A diagnostic conclusion and a competency conclusion occupy different levels of analysis. Someone with schizophrenia may participate effectively after treatment; someone without a major psychiatric diagnosis may still have a severe neurocognitive or communication impairment. Examiners must explain the functional pathway rather than substituting a label for evidence.

5. Using structured instruments when appropriate

Specialized measures can help organize inquiries and provide structured comparisons. The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool–Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA) addresses understanding, reasoning and appreciation; the Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial–Revised (ECST-R) examines trial-related capacities and includes atypical-presentation indicators; the CAST-MR was developed for defendants with intellectual disability, under terminology used at its creation. Each has population and interpretation constraints.

A 2019 meta-analysis by Blake, Ogloff and Chen combined eleven studies of second-generation instruments. It found encouraging reliability for several measures but insufficient evidence to meta-analyze important properties such as sensitivity, specificity and factor structure across instruments. A 2022 critical review by Anderson and colleagues described potential value for MacCAT-CA and ECST-R in ambiguous cases while stressing limitations and careful interpretation. Structured assessment informs the clinical opinion; the court determines legal competency.

6. Integrating alternative explanations and drafting the opinion

Good forensic reasoning moves from observations and records to specific legal functions, then considers rival explanations. If a defendant cannot describe the prosecutor’s role, the evaluator investigates language proficiency, prior instruction, intellectual functioning, hearing, distress, medication, psychosis and effort before assigning meaning to the answer. A robust report identifies the legal questions, sources, methods, observed capacities and limitations, contradictory evidence, uncertainty, and the reasoning supporting an opinion.

Professional conclusions may state that current data support competence, support incompetence, or are insufficient for a well-grounded opinion. The evaluator may discuss specific abilities that could improve with education, accommodation or treatment. The judge or other authorized legal decision-maker reaches the legal finding under applicable rules; the examiner’s opinion is influential evidence, not itself a judgment.

What Do Competency Tests Actually Measure?

Competency instruments measure samples of legally relevant understanding, appreciation or reasoning under standardized or semi-structured conditions. Scores can reflect the interaction of a defendant’s abilities, language, educational exposure, symptoms, test demands and administration conditions. They are not direct measurements of a person’s legal rights, future conduct or guilt.

Reliability asks whether scores are reasonably consistent under relevant conditions or across trained raters. Construct validity asks whether the results represent the abilities the test claims to assess. Criterion-related evidence may ask whether scores distinguish groups classified competent or incompetent by independent methods. These are different questions, and evidence supporting one does not automatically establish the others.

Predictive validity is especially easy to misstate. Competency assessments primarily seek to estimate present functional capacity rather than forecast violence, recidivism or criminal behavior. A study showing differences between groups may not establish how accurately a threshold classifies an individual defendant. Classification depends on case mix, prevalence, reference standards, examiner decision rules and how the instrument performs in the evaluated population.

Sensitivity, specificity and classification errors

Sensitivity is the proportion of reference-positive cases identified by a test at a specified threshold; specificity is the proportion of reference-negative cases correctly identified. False positives and false negatives are the resulting classification errors relative to a defined reference standard. Which classification is called positive must be stated explicitly. A false classification of incompetence could delay proceedings and affect liberty; a false classification of competence risks proceeding despite a defendant’s inability to participate meaningfully.

Positive and negative predictive values vary with the proportion of competency difficulties in the population being evaluated. Calibration asks whether estimated probabilities correspond to observed outcomes; instruments that supply scores without validated probabilities should not be described as individually calibrated. The Blake and colleagues meta-analysis found that major accuracy statistics could not be pooled from the available studies, a significant limitation for claims of universal cutoffs.

Why populations and settings matter

Performance established in one adult forensic sample cannot simply be transferred to juveniles, defendants with intellectual disability, people using an interpreter, individuals with complex neurological conditions or a different legal system. Courts also differ in their legal standards and the services available. A test’s norm group, item content and language assumptions must match the referral as closely as possible; otherwise interpretation should be qualified.

Can Someone Be Incompetent Without a Mental Illness?

The answer depends on the governing law and the basis for the functional impairment. Severe cognitive, developmental, neurological or communication difficulties may impair relevant abilities even without the psychiatric presentation commonly imagined in court dramas. Some statutes specify a mental disease or defect requirement; the relevant legal language must be checked rather than assumed. In federal court, § 4241 contains that statutory formulation.

Education gaps, unfamiliarity with the legal system, limited English proficiency or sensory impairment can also produce poor answers on a courtroom-knowledge examination. Their presence requires appropriate explanation or accommodation and analysis of the actual abilities at issue. A failure caused by inaccessible communication should not casually be converted into a finding of mental incapacity.

Can Someone With a Serious Mental Illness Be Competent?

Yes. Competency is assessed individually, with attention to current legally relevant abilities. Psychotic symptoms, severe depression, mania or another condition may be clinically significant without preventing consultation with counsel or rational appreciation of proceedings. Conversely, the functional consequences of symptoms can be severe in some cases. Clinical severity and adjudicative capacity overlap in variable ways and cannot be equated.

The same applies to treatment status. Medication use, hospitalization history and prior diagnoses are contextual evidence. None automatically proves either competency or incompetency. Competency may change after treatment, and in some cases symptoms, side effects or other factors make reassessment important.

What Happens After a Competency Evaluation?

The examiner generally submits a report to the court or authorized recipient; procedures may then include a hearing, opportunities for the parties to contest findings, and a judicial determination. Some systems use stipulated reports in agreed cases, while others require additional testimony or hearings. The legal finding should be distinguished from the examiner’s clinical formulation and any individual test scores.

If the defendant is found competent

The criminal case can generally proceed under the jurisdiction’s ordinary procedures. A competency finding resolves a threshold capacity question at that point, not the truth of the charges, not the success of any defense, and not every later waiver or choice. Competency concerns may be revisited if new evidence or a material change arises.

If the defendant is found incompetent

Proceedings are ordinarily suspended while the jurisdiction applies its rules concerning treatment, restoration, placement, review periods and alternative dispositions. In the federal system, 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d) sets out a restoration-related commitment framework following a finding of incompetence. The Supreme Court in Jackson v. Indiana (1972) rejected indefinite detention justified solely by incompetence and articulated constitutional limits on the duration and purpose of commitment.

Restoration may involve mental-health treatment, education about legal proceedings, communication accommodations and repeated evaluation. The suitability and effectiveness of particular approaches depend on the person and the cause of impairment. A 2024 systematic review of competency-restoration research found that much of the empirical literature relies on retrospective designs and has methodological limitations; therefore broad success-rate claims require careful setting-specific evidence. The separate EN-58 article on competency restoration owns the full treatment-and-outcomes analysis.

What about medication against a defendant’s wishes?

In the United States, involuntary medication to restore competency raises distinct constitutional and clinical questions. Sell v. United States (2003) describes a demanding legal framework for medication sought specifically to make prosecution possible. Clinical assessment of potential benefit, adverse effects and alternatives does not replace the required legal analysis. Decisions depend on the precise legal grounds and jurisdiction.

Competency to Stand Trial Versus the Insanity Defense

Competency concerns the defendant’s abilities during the adjudicative process. An insanity defense, where available, typically concerns legally defined criminal responsibility at the time of the alleged offense. They ask different questions, involve different temporal references and may use different statutory criteria. A person can be competent to stand trial while raising an insanity defense; another may be incompetent but have no legally viable insanity defense.

The distinction is recognized expressly in 18 U.S.C. § 4241(f), which addresses the separate treatment of a federal competency finding and an insanity defense. The detailed comparison of these doctrines belongs to the neighboring EN58-071 article; the detailed doctrines of criminal responsibility to EN58-072. Neither evaluation determines guilt through a psychological test.

Competency, Pleas, Waivers and Self-Representation

Capacity to proceed is closely related to decisions such as entering a guilty plea or waiving counsel, but each raises its own legal requirements. In Godinez v. Moran (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court considered the competency standard in relation to pleading guilty and waiving counsel, while distinguishing competency from whether a waiver was knowing and voluntary. These legal concepts should not be collapsed into a single test score.

The ability to defend oneself without counsel presents practical difficulties distinct from the ability to assist a trained attorney. Jurisdictions and later case law recognize nuances in the self-representation context. Evaluators should understand the particular requested determination rather than treating one competency label as a permanent authorization for every legal decision.

Feigning, Exaggeration and Response Validity

A forensic evaluator may need to consider intentionally exaggerated or fabricated symptoms alongside genuine symptoms, cognitive limitations, misunderstanding, trauma-related responses and other explanations. Suspected malingering is an assessment hypothesis, not a finding of dishonesty established by a single odd answer or elevated screening score. Strong opinions require converging evidence and consideration of plausible alternatives.

A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis by Krishnan and colleagues examined feigning-screening tools used in competency contexts. It reported useful screening sensitivity for the M-FAST and ECST-R Atypical Presentation scales but highlighted elevated false-positive concerns and the need for follow-up assessment after positive screens. Screening results therefore help determine whether more assessment is indicated; they do not independently establish feigning, legal competence or a motive to deceive.

Testing behavior should be interpreted in context. People may perform inconsistently because of fatigue, language, psychiatric symptoms, neurological factors, pain, unfamiliar tasks or conscious strategy. Forensic fairness requires a reasoned examination of these possibilities rather than a reflexive conclusion that atypical responses prove intentional deception.

Culture, Language, Disability and Fairness

The APA Specialty Guidelines direct examiners to consider relevant differences in language, disability, culture, background and test-taking conditions. Legal familiarity varies across communities and educational experiences. Professional terminology, courtroom idioms and complex hypothetical questions may be especially inaccessible to some defendants. The evaluator should distinguish lack of exposure from an inability to learn and apply information under fair conditions.

Qualified interpretation and accessible communication may be necessary to make an examination valid. Interpreter involvement introduces additional considerations concerning accuracy, confidentiality, translation of legal concepts and consistency. Cognitive and psychiatric instruments require interpretation within their validation populations. When a test has insufficient evidence for a population, the evaluator should disclose that limit and rely on appropriately individualized evidence.

Fairness is also procedural. Access to counsel, quality of prior legal explanations, appropriate accommodation, evaluator independence and adequate time influence the information that reaches the court. A report should clearly separate the defendant’s observed abilities from barriers created by the assessment setting. Cultural difference, dissent from counsel or reluctance to trust authorities is not itself pathology.

Juvenile Defendants and Developmental Considerations

Adolescent defendants can face distinctive problems involving comprehension, developmental maturity, suggestibility, executive functioning and dependence on adults. The relationship between knowledge, appreciation and rational decision-making may differ from typical adult patterns. Competency procedures for minors vary among jurisdictions, and instruments developed for adults should not be assumed valid for youth without suitable evidence.

A juvenile evaluation must attend to developmental and educational history, language, learning and social-context factors alongside psychiatric considerations. The legal system must apply its own juvenile or criminal-court standards, depending on the case. Youth offending risk and juvenile capacity are separate inquiries; neither a risk factor nor an arrest record establishes incapacity.

Ethical Duties and the Limits of Expert Testimony

Competency evaluation takes place within an adversarial legal system and can profoundly affect liberty. The examiner’s obligation is to use methods suited to the referral, document their reasoning, communicate limitations, avoid misleading certainty and maintain role clarity. The APA guidelines emphasize impartiality, competence, sources of information, informed notification and attention to biases and cultural context.

A persuasive report connects each factual observation to a legally relevant function and specifies uncertainty. It makes clear whether a statement is a clinical diagnosis, behavioral description, test score, third-party report, professional opinion or judicial finding. It should describe disagreement among data sources, circumstances that limit validity, and whether further examination or accommodation could clarify the question.

A competency evaluation cannot determine whether a person is guilty, whether eyewitnesses are credible, whether someone will reoffend, or whether an insanity defense should succeed. Those issues arise from separate evidence and legal standards. The professional may address overlapping clinical facts when relevant, but should not expand the opinion beyond the authorized psycholegal question.

Common Myths About Competency to Stand Trial

Myth: An accused person with a psychiatric diagnosis is automatically incompetent.

Competency concerns current ability to understand proceedings and work with counsel. Diagnosis is one possible source of evidence about functional impairment, not a substitute for the legal analysis.

Myth: Competency means understanding every legal detail.

The standard concerns sufficient abilities for meaningful participation. It does not require professional legal knowledge, flawless memory, sophisticated reasoning or agreement with an attorney’s preferred strategy.

Myth: A competency test produces a definitive answer.

Test results are conditional evidence interpreted alongside interviews, records and the jurisdiction’s standards. Existing psychometric reviews describe important gaps in validation and classification evidence.

Myth: Incompetence is the same as an insanity defense.

Competency addresses capacities during proceedings; insanity defenses concern the legally defined relationship between mental condition and criminal responsibility at the time of the alleged act. They are separate questions.

Myth: Once competency is decided, it can never change.

Competency is time-sensitive. New information or clinically meaningful change may require the court to revisit the issue under applicable procedures.

Practical Questions for Defendants, Families and Legal Teams

A person who is concerned about trial-related difficulties should bring them to defense counsel promptly. The most useful descriptions identify specific functional problems: inability to understand charges after explanation, difficulty retaining crucial information, communication barriers, disorganized thinking that disrupts case preparation, or changes in functioning. Documentation and accommodations can help the legal team determine whether a competency concern should be raised. A self-administered online questionnaire cannot replace legal advice or a formal forensic evaluation.

Family members can often assist by providing a factual timeline of changes, relevant existing records and descriptions of communication or functioning. A diagnosis and a general impression may be helpful context, but concrete examples are usually more informative. Information should be supplied through appropriate legal channels, with respect for confidentiality and privilege.

For attorneys, effective referrals specify the relevant stage, local legal standard, precise areas of concern, and the evidence to be reviewed. Counsel should distinguish disagreements about case strategy from actual inability to collaborate and should identify possible language or disability accommodations early. Professional reports are best evaluated by examining the reasoning, sources and limitations, not simply the expert’s ultimate label.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the simplest definition of competency to stand trial?

It is the legally required present capacity to understand the criminal proceedings and participate meaningfully with counsel. The exact test varies by jurisdiction.

What questions are asked during a competency evaluation?

Questions may address the charges, courtroom roles, possible outcomes, plea options, the attorney’s function, the defendant’s ability to discuss facts and the capacity to reason about available choices. Examiners adapt questions to the case and the person’s communication needs.

Who decides competency to stand trial?

The judge or other legally authorized decision-maker reaches the legal determination under local law. Mental-health professionals typically provide forensic evaluations and opinions that inform the decision.

Does a judge have to follow the psychologist’s opinion?

The applicable rules govern how expert evidence is weighed. An expert’s opinion is evidence to consider, while the competency finding belongs to the court.

Can you be competent to stand trial while having schizophrenia or bipolar disorder?

Yes. Current function, not the diagnostic label alone, determines the competency inquiry. The examination must identify any specific impairment of factual understanding, rational appreciation or ability to work with counsel.

Is competency to stand trial the same as being mentally fit to plead guilty?

These concepts overlap, but courts also examine whether a particular waiver or plea satisfies its own requirements. Godinez v. Moran is an important U.S. starting point, and local law controls application.

How long does a competency evaluation take?

Timing depends on the setting, records, clinical complexity, need for specialized testing, access to interpreters and statutory deadlines. A single interview can be part of an evaluation, but comprehensive assessments may require repeated contact and collateral review.

What if someone is found incompetent?

The court applies the jurisdiction’s rules concerning suspension of proceedings, possible restoration services, review and lawful disposition. Incompetency is not a verdict of innocence or guilt; continued confinement is subject to legal limits such as those addressed in Jackson v. Indiana.

Can a defendant refuse to cooperate with the evaluator?

Refusal can complicate the assessment and trigger jurisdiction-specific procedures. Its significance must be evaluated with attention to reasons for refusal, relevant rights, legal orders and available alternative evidence. Refusal alone does not conclusively establish incapacity or competence.

Is the competency examination confidential?

A forensic examination often involves disclosure to authorized legal recipients and different confidentiality expectations from ordinary therapy. The evaluator should explain those limits at the outset in keeping with local law and professional guidance.

Can competency be challenged again after an earlier finding?

Yes, where new circumstances or evidence satisfy applicable procedural requirements. Competency is a present-capacity question, and meaningful clinical changes can affect the analysis.

References

American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. (2007). AAPL practice guideline for the forensic psychiatric evaluation of competence to stand trial. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 35(Suppl. 4), S3–S72.

American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68(1), 7–19.

Anderson, J. L., Plantz, J., Glocker, S., & Zapf, P. A. (2022). The MacCAT-CA and the ECST-R in competency to stand trial evaluations: A critical review and practical implications. Journal of Personality Assessment, 104(2), 281–288.

Blake, G. A., Ogloff, J. R. P., & Chen, W. S. (2019). Meta-analysis of second generation competency to stand trial assessment measures: Preliminary findings. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 64, 238–249.

Candilis, P. J., & Parker, G. F. (2024). An assessment of the quality of competence restoration research. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.

Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975). Supreme Court opinion.

Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960). United States Reports, official government archive.

Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993). United States Reports, official government archive.

Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972). Supreme Court opinion.

Krishnan, N., Trood, M. D., Ruffles, J., Blake, G., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2026). Are feigning screens competent to stand trial? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test, Atypical Presentation Scales, and Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology. Law and Human Behavior, 50(4), 335–360.

Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966). Supreme Court opinion.

Rogers, R., Grandjean, N., Tillbrook, C. E., Vitacco, M. J., & Sewell, K. W. (2001). Recent interview-based measures of competency to stand trial: A critical review augmented with research data. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19(4), 503–518.

Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003). Supreme Court opinion.

United States Code. 18 U.S.C. § 4241: Determination of mental competency to stand trial.

Psychological Encyclopedia