Juvenile competence to stand trial: Research issues in practice.

Abstract

The recent referral of a 10-year-old boy to an outpatient Forensic Clinic in Virginia for the evaluation of his competence to stand trial (CST) raised four research issues in practice. Two of these research issues are raised in the context of mental health law: (1) What is the legal standing of the concept of competence to stand trial in juvenile court? (2) If there is such a distinct concept in juvenile court, how do relevant case law and statutes suggest that it differs from the adult standard of trial competence? Two further questions are relevant for behavioral science researchers: (1) Assuming that competence to stand trial is contextual (Grisso, 1986), what are the components of juvenile trial competence, and how can they be measured? (2) What are the relevant norms for performance of these tasks, and how can such norms be used by clinicians to separate developmentally induced deficits from those caused by psychopathology or mental retardation? There are no Virginia statutes or case law on juvenile CST5 However, one report has indicated that 17 state and the federal jurisdictions recognize this form of competence explicitly (Grisso, Miller, & Sales, 1987). Moreover, apparently no court has ruled that there is no such competence (Fitch, 1989), and the U.S. Supreme Court has determined (In re Gault, 1967) that juvenile defendants are entitled to a number of the procedural protections accorded adults (e.g., the rights to be represented by counsel and to confront witnesses, and the right against self-incrimination). The adult standard for competence to stand trial, applied without elaboration in the federal and nearly all state jurisdictions,6 was set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dusky v. United States (1960): whether (the defendant) has sufficient pre-