Now See This? Forensic Evaluator Opinions Regarding Direct Observation When Evaluating Competency to Proceed

• Published in: Professional psychology, research and practice Vol. 52; no. 6; pp. 600 - 609
• Main Authors: Cox, Jennifer, Meaux, Lauren T., Kois, Lauren E., Jensen, Cassandra
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Washington American Psychological Association 01-12-2021
• Subjects: Attorneys; Best practice; Best Practices; Competence; Competency to Stand Trial; Defendants; Direct Observation; Female; Forensic Evaluation; Human; Male; Privileges & immunities; Violations; direct observation; competency to stand trial; competency to proceed
• ISSN: 0735-7028; 1939-1323
• DOI: 10.1037/pro0000395

Despite ample best practice recommendations for competency to proceed (CTP) evaluations, direct observation of defendant-attorney interactions is an unstudied methodological technique for assessing defendants' abilities to assist and consult with their attorneys. This mixed-methods study surveyed 57 forensic evaluators regarding their history and opinions of direct observation as a component of CTP evaluations. The majority (70.20%) of forensic evaluators had engaged in direct observation on at least one occasion, with some practicing this approach in up to 85% of their evaluations. A minority endorsed or expressed concerns regarding this practice (e.g., third-party effects, violations of attorney-client privilege). Results of this study provide a preliminary indication of how evaluators perceive the potential utility and hazards of direct observation. In response, we offer a framework for approaching direct observation and highlight the need for additional research examining the impact of this methodological technique for CTP evaluations.
Public Significance Statement
When conducting an evaluation of a criminal defendant's competency to proceed, forensic evaluators may directly observe the defendant interacting with their attorney. This mixed-methods study found that many forensic evaluators use this data collection technique and perceive it to inform their psycholegal opinions. However, evaluators must be cognizant to remain independent and impartial.