Can defendants with mental retardation successfully fake their performance on a test of competence to stand trial?

Everington, Caroline; Notario-Smull, Heidi; Horton, Mel L.

doi:10.1002/bsl.735

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, Everington, Notario‐Smull, and Horton () found that defendants with intellectual disability scored lower on the Competence Assessment for Standing Trial – Mental Retardation (CAST‐MR) when instructed to fake a poor performance on the test compared with defendants with intellectual disability who did not receive these instructions (control group). They noted that although, such defendants sometimes can successfully feign their performance on the CAST‐MR when told to do so, more research is needed to determine whether they can understand the potential positive outcome of malingering in their actual criminal case.…”

Section: Special Populationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ten Year Research Update (2001–2010): Evaluations for Competence to Stand Trial (Adjudicative Competence)

Fogel

Schiffman

Mumley

et al. 2013

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews and evaluates publications during 2001-2010 with relevance for assessments of competence to stand trial, referred to in this article as adjudicative competence. The review focuses specifically on articles that provide new concepts or data supported by research or case analyses. The studies are reviewed under the following headings: (i) systemic issues, (ii) conceptual guidelines for AC evaluations, (iii) AC assessment methods, (iv) empirical correlates of AC judgments and psycholegal abilities, (v) quality of AC evaluations and reports, (vi) interpretive issues, (vii) special populations (defendants who are elderly, defendants with intellectual disabilities), (viii) AC evaluations of juveniles, and (ix) treatment of incompetent defendants. Suggestions are offered for further research to advance the quality of clinical evaluations of adjudicative competence.

show abstract

Section: Special Populationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ten Year Research Update (2001–2010): Evaluations for Competence to Stand Trial (Adjudicative Competence)

Fogel

Schiffman

Mumley

et al. 2013

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, the CAST-MR has no measures of response style, and it may be vulnerable to malingering. In a dissimulation study, both intellectually disabled and intellectually typical defendants instructed to feign incompetence showed significantly lower scores on the CAST-MR than the normative sample (Everington, Notario-Smull, & Horton, 2007). No appreciable difference was found between the scores of intellectually disabled and intellectually typical feigners.…”

Section: Competence Assessment For Standing Trial Formentioning

confidence: 79%

Competency to stand trial and criminal responsibility in forensic neuropsychology practice.

Mallory¹,

Guyton²

2017

APA Handbook of Forensic Neuropsychology.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Competency-to-stand-trial (CST) evaluations are the backbone of criminal forensic psychology practice. CST evaluations may be the most common criminal forensic psychology evaluation (Zapf & Roesch, 2009). Criminal responsibility (CR) defenses are relatively rare, used in only about 1 in 1,000 felony cases (Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 2007;Packer, 2009). The number of CR evaluations completed is unknown but is likely significantly greater than the number of CR defenses actually taken to trial. The forensic psychology literature has many excellent reviews of CST and CR (e.g., Hall, 2008;Weiner & Hess, 2006). Although forensic neuropsychologists are more likely to practice in civil court, they play a growing role in criminal court as well, including CST and CR evaluations. In fact, neuropsychology is likely underused in CST and CR cases, even when brain disorder or neurocognitive deficits are suspected.This chapter provides an introduction to the concepts of CST and CR and reviews the landmark cases, precedents, and concepts involved in each. A review of the literature and legal cases specifically for neuropsychology and CST and CR is provided. True to the identity of this volume as a practical handbook, we emphasize practical issues and recommendations for conducting forensic neuropsychological CST and CR evaluations.Although CST and CR are used throughout this chapter, there are many alternate names. CR refers primarily to insanity and may be termed not guilty by reason of insanity or guilty except for insanity. The focus of a CR evaluation is the defendant's capacity to have understood, at the time of the offense, that the conduct was wrong. There are closely related issues as well, such as questions of extreme emotional disturbance (EED) or diminished capacity.CST is also known as adjudicative competency, trial competency, or fitness to proceed. Defendants found incompetent are known as incompetent to stand trial (IST). An evaluator may assess many specific competencies: to (a) waive Miranda rights, (b) confess, (c) waive counsel, (d) represent oneself, (e) make a plea, and so forth. For a discussion of these specific competencies in forensic neuropsychology see Horton and Hartlage (2010). As used in this chapter, CST refers to whether the defendant (a) has a factual and rational understanding of the legal proceedings against defendant, (b) is able to assist the attorney, and (c) is able to participate in the defense. These three concepts are often referred to the "three prongs" of CST. PRIMER ON THE LEGAL CONCEPTS OF COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL AND CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITYBoth CST and CR have long social and legal histories. In the sections that follow, we provide brief historical outlines of these concepts, intended to assist in developing an understanding of their use in today's court systems.

show abstract

“…Individuals with genuine mental retardation may attempt to exaggerate their cognitive deficits. Everington and colleagues reported that a group of subjects with mental retardation instructed to malinger on the Competence Assessment to Stand Trial For Defendants With Mental Retardation (CAST * MR) obtained scores similar to a group of controls who were also instructed to malinger (Everington, Notario-Smull, & Horton, 2007). This suggests that even individuals with significant intellectual impairment, who may genuinely lack adjudicative competence, can feign greater impairment.…”

Section: Detecting Malingered Cognitive Impairmentmentioning

confidence: 84%

Feigning in adjudicative competence evaluations

Soliman

Resnick

2010

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Competence to stand trial (adjudicative competence) is the most requested forensic psychiatric evaluation, with an estimated 60,000 referrals annually. The challenge of detecting feigned incompetence has not been systematically studied until the past decade. Estimates of feigned adjudicative incompetence vary from 8 to 21%. This article reviews techniques for detecting malingered psychosis and malingered cognitive impairment during competence evaluations. Specific techniques for assessing feigned adjudicative incompetence and estimating the malingerer's genuine abilities are discussed. A stepwise approach to suspected feigned adjudicative incompetence is proffered.

show abstract

Can defendants with mental retardation successfully fake their performance on a test of competence to stand trial?

Cited by 13 publications

References 18 publications

Ten Year Research Update (2001–2010): Evaluations for Competence to Stand Trial (Adjudicative Competence)

Ten Year Research Update (2001–2010): Evaluations for Competence to Stand Trial (Adjudicative Competence)

Competency to stand trial and criminal responsibility in forensic neuropsychology practice.

Feigning in adjudicative competence evaluations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About