A Pilot Survey of Trial Court Judges' Opinions on Pro Se Competence After Indiana v. Edwards

[摘要] In Indiana v. Edwards , the U.S. Supreme Court held that a higher standard may be required for pro se competence (PSC) than for competence to stand trial (CST). However, the Court refrained from elaborating a specific standard. The trial judge is in the best position to make more fine-tuned mental capacity decisions. This pilot study surveyed trial judges` opinions about PSC to help forensic evaluators structure their assessments. Eighteen of 400 New York State trial judges surveyed replied. Trial judges regarded disorders of cognitive impairment ( n = 10) and psychosis ( n = 4) to be potentially limiting for PSC. Responses relating to which domains should be assessed were heterogeneous, but the most common were intellectual and analytic abilities ( n = 10), legal knowledge/experience ( n = 9), and language abilities ( n = 8). Several judges listed factors that are not traditionally part of CST evaluations, such as having a rational reason for proceeding pro se and a willingness to accept the assistance of standby counsel.

[学科分类] 儿科学

[关键词] Phytophthora cinnamomi;soil moisture;soil water table