Competency trials

More information specific to the evolution of the framework can be found by clicking here. Skip to content. JTF Core Competency Framework for Clinical Research Professionals The Joint Task Force for Clinical Trial Competency JTF is an international team of investigators, educators and clinical research professionals that has developed a framework that defines the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary for conducting safe, ethical and high-quality clinical research.

Clicking on each domain above will show the specific competency statements which detail the core competencies required at the Basic, Skilled and Expert levels. The forensic evaluator must make inferences based on the defendant's responses.

Does the defendant appear to be acting to protect himself appropriately? Is there relevant self-defeating behavior or attitudes?

Does the defendant appear to be able to retain and use new information? The defendant's ability to provide an account of the alleged offense may be important to the defense attorney.

The assessment of this capacity is problematic, however, and some clinicians believe that it should not be included in the routine evaluation. Attorneys may instruct their clients not to answer questions about the events surrounding the offense.

In theory, details of the offense relayed to the clinician should be protected from disclosure and should not be included in the report ; both defendants and their attorneys may have reasonable concerns that incriminating details will leak out.

One alternative to direct assessment is to ask the defense attorney about the defendant's ability to provide details.

Another is to ask the defendant if he recalls the events and feels able to relate an account to his attorney. The assessment of CST is a common forensic evaluation. This article provided a brief review of the assessment process. Clinicians who undertake the responsibility for conducting these evaluations should undergo sufficient training with supervision. In addition, they will need to be familiar with the local rules regarding reports, testimony, and treatment of defendants found to be incompetent to stand trial.

In this article, instruments developed by that group are discussed. The author receives compensation from the sale of those instruments. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Journal List Indian J Psychiatry v. Indian J Psychiatry. Steven K. Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer. E-mail: moc. Abstract The legal concept of competence to stand trial has ancient roots. Keywords: Competence to stand trial, Process of clinical evaluation, Expert opinion.

Accuracy of criminal process The participation of a competent defendant is important to achieving reliable outcomes in the judicial process. Autonomy Under the law, certain decisions are to be made by the criminal defendant. Preparation for the assessment The forensic clinician should prepare for the interview by reviewing records, speaking with the defendant's attorney, and determining whether more information should be gathered.

Table 1 Preparing for assessment. Open in a separate window. Assessment content The assessment content should follow the legal test as outlined by Dusky. Competency to assist counsel Understanding of criminal charges Understanding of the implications of being a defendant Understanding of the adversarial nature of the proceedings Understanding of the role of defense counsel, prosecutor, judge, and jury Ability to work with attorney and relate pertinent information. Decisional competency Ability to make important decisions that arise in the course of adjudication: how to plead, considering plea agreements, strategy of defense.

Attorney interactions The defendant should be asked about the quality of their interactions with defense counsel. Observations and inferences The forensic evaluator must make inferences based on the defendant's responses.

Account of event The defendant's ability to provide an account of the alleged offense may be important to the defense attorney. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest. Attorney-client decision-making in criminal cases: Client competence and participation as perceived by their attorneys.

Behav Sci Law. Client abilities to assist counsel and make decisions in criminal cases: Findings from three studies.

Law Hum Behav. New York: Kluwer Academic; Bonnie RJ. The Court noted that, despite the amendment, proof of cognitive incapacity could still be introduced as it would be relevant and sufficient to prove the remaining moral incapacity test. For example, in Kahler v. Kansas , the Court held that the Due Process Clause does not require a state to adopt M'Naghten 's moral-incapacity test as a complete insanity defense resulting in an acquittal. Commitment to a mental hospital of a criminal defendant acquitted by reason of insanity does not offend due process, and the period of confinement may extend beyond the period for which the person could have been sentenced if convicted.

The fact that the affirmative defense of insanity need only be established by a preponderance of the evidence, while civil commitment requires the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence, does not render the former invalid; proof beyond a reasonable doubt of commission of a criminal act establishes dangerousness justifying confinement and eliminates the risk of confinement for mere idiosyncratic behavior.

It follows, however, that a state may not indefinitely confine an insanity-defense acquittee who is no longer mentally ill but who has an untreatable personality disorder that may lead to criminal conduct. Louisiana, U. In Atkins v. Wainwright, U. The Court quoted this language again in Schriro v. Smith , determining that the Ninth Circuit exceeded its authority in holding that Arizona courts were required to conduct a jury trial to resolve a defendant's claim that he was ineligible for the death penalty because of intellectual disability.

Issues of substantive due process may arise if the government seeks to compel the medication of a person found to be incompetent to stand trial.

In Washington v. Harper , 17 Footnote U. In Sell v. United States , 18 Footnote U. First, however, the government must engage in a fact-specific inquiry as to whether this interest is important in a particular case.

Second, the court must find that the treatment is likely to render the defendant competent to stand trial without resulting in side effects that will interfere with the defendant's ability to assist counsel.