JUS430_T2_Memorandum of Law

.docx

School

Pierce College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

202

Subject

Law

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by BarristerBoulder3723

Whalling Law Group, PLLC 3300 West Lakeview Blvd. Office 221B Phoenix, AZ 85017 Memorandum of Law To: Kevin Whalling, Esq. From: Maya Garcia Date: February 4, 2024 Subject: Competency & The Criminal Justice System – Ms. Johnson Issue The primary legal issue involves Mr. Kevin Whalling determining whether Clara Johnson, a 32-year-old client being accused of battery with the mental acuity of a 5-year-old due to a mental disability, meets the legal crite- ria for competency to stand trial. Considering Mr. Whalling's background is primarily focused on property and maritime law, he needs a deep understanding of the standards and procedures related to evaluating and argu- ing incompetency in a criminal court setting. Facts Firstly, Mr. Whalling must understand what criminal competency is. In which, the defendant must be able to as- sist their attorney, understand, and follow the trial. If they can not do so the individual found incompetent is “ suspended until they are found competent” (Lippmann, 2021). It is also important to understand the difference between competency and insanity and ultimately how it may affect one's mental capacity, culpability, and de- fenses to crimes. Both are legal concepts that help address the different aspects of a defendant's mental state. Competency as previously mentioned ensures that the defendant understands the consequences of the court proceedings and is capable of participating in their defense. This means they are only focusing on their mental state at the time of the trial and not at the crime. This will typically be done through medical treatment or ther- apy. Ultimately competency only can delay the trial but does not affect the defendant's culpability for the crime committed. This in the end ensures a fair trial. Insanity on the other hand refers to what a defendant may claim due to a mental illness at the time of their crime. They claim that at the time of their crime, they were unable to distinguish right from wrong therefore affecting their criminal responsibility. If their claim is found to be true it can result in not guilty reason of insanity. With this verdict, they will be committed to a mental facility for treat- ment. This now takes into consideration their mental state at the time of the offense. This directly affects the assessment of culpability, supporting that the defendant lacked the necessary mental capacity to commit the crime intentionally or to understand its wrongfulness. So, in summary, competency concerns the defendant's current ability to participate in the legal process, while insanity addresses the defendant's mental state at the time of the crime and their responsibility for their actions. Now when determining whether a defendant is com- petent they may go through structured interviews, psychological testing such as IQ tests/memory assess- ments, competency assessments like CAST-MR/ MacCAT-CA/ ECST-R, review of medical records, observa- tional reports, and forensic evaluations. The determination of competency is based on a legal decision made by the court ’ s recommendations and the findings of mental health professionals. If found incompetent the trial will be paused until they are fully aware of the proceedings. If the individual is not restored to competency within a certain time frame, the next steps need to be taken, which could include an extended stay at the men- tal health facility. But If the court finds the individual competent, the criminal proceedings will then resume.

Discussion Arizona ’ s Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 defines the basis of incompetency to stand trial. It states that a per- son “ shall not be tried, convicted, sentenced or punished for a public offense, except for proceedings under A.R.S. [section], as a result of a mental illness, defect, or disability, the person is unable to understand the pro- ceedings against him or her or to assist in his or her defense” (Finn, 2015). In this case, Ms. Johnson qualifies since she was medically diagnosed with a mental disability that makes her have the mental acuity of a 5-year- old child. Under Rule 11 in Arizona, her defense attorney holds the right to ask the jury for a full mental exami- nation and hearing when reasonable grounds exist. This is when two doctors will then examine Ms. Johnson to assess her comprehension levels. These questions may consist of “ What is your level of understanding of the proceedings, what is the role of a jury in a criminal case, are you aware of the nature of a plea bargain, or are you fully aware of the charges against you” (Garcia Law Firm, 2019). If both doctors agree that Ms. Johnson is competent the trial will resume but if both doctors have a split decision a third doctor may be added. If they agree she is incompetent under Rule 11 the state can decide whether they want to dismiss the charges or send her to a mental facility if she is a danger to society or themselves. If they decide to send Ms. Johnson to a facility for treatment, they will reevaluate her to determine if her competency has been restored. This may in- volve additional hearings and evaluations. If she is found to be competent, the criminal proceedings will re- sume where initially left off. If she remains incompetent, long-term arrangements may be made which might in- clude continued treatment or civil commitment. Conclusion In summary, I do not believe Mr. Whaling has the qualifications to provide Ms. Johnson with the best services. She should be provided with a defense attorney who specializes in these cases. The probability of Mr. Whalling being successful in asserting a competency issue on behalf of Ms. Johnson is not high, unfortunately. With that being said she should be given an attorney who emphasizes mental health and not one that takes on property and maritime law cases. Citations The defendant has the right to a full mental examination under Rule 11 . Garcia Law Firm, PLC |. (2019, March 28). https://bernardogarcialaw.com/2018/11/the-importance-of-rule-11-in-ari- zona #:~:text=During % 20a % 20trial % 20in %20Arizona, suspected %20of%20being%20mentally % 20incompetent . Finn, E. R. (2015). Driven by financial reasons or passion? Judges Journal , 54 (2), 28. https://link-gale- com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/A435718762/ITOF?u=canyonuniv&sid=bookmark ITOF&xid=45a0e5b1 Lippmann, M, (2021). Contemporary criminal law: Concepts, cases, and controversies (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ISBN: 13-9781071812976

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help