Dusky Standard Slides Dusky Standard Slides
Competency to Stand Trial
The Courtroom Transcript
"The purple birds are whispering the codes of the constitution into my left ear, and the prosecutor is actually a hologram sent from the year 3022. I cannot speak to my lawyer because he is made of static electricity."
— Defendant at Preliminary Hearing
Critical Inquiry:
Is this defendant competent to stand trial? Why or why not? What specifically are we looking for?
Competency vs. Insanity
Competency (CST)
Focus: Present mental state at the time of the trial.
Goal: Ensure a fair process and reliable outcome.
Standard: Can they participate in their own defense?
Insanity (NGRI)
Focus: Mental state at the time the crime was committed.
Goal: Determine criminal responsibility/culpability.
Standard: Did they know right from wrong or control their actions?
Dusky v. United States
The Two-Pronged Legal Standard
1
Factual & Rational Understanding
Does the defendant understand the proceedings against them (charges, roles of court personnel, potential penalties)?
2
Assistance to Counsel
Can the defendant consult with their lawyer with a "reasonable degree of rational understanding"?
When Incompetence is Found
Hospitalization
Defendant is typically committed to a psychiatric facility for the specific purpose of "restoration."
Treatment
Includes psychotropic medication, group therapy, and "legal education" to teach courtroom procedures.
Jackson v. Indiana
Limits commitment to a "reasonable period" to determine if there is a substantial probability of restoration.
Key Takeaway: Competency is a legal threshold, not a medical diagnosis.
Dusky Standard Facilitator Guide Facilitator Guide
Dusky Standard & Competency Hook
Forensic Psychology
Lesson 1: Competency to Stand Trial
Lesson Overview
This lesson introduces the constitutional requirement that a defendant must be mentally competent to stand trial. Students must move beyond the "common sense" view that "crazy people shouldn't be tried" to the specific legal standard set by Dusky v. United States (1960).
Key Terms
Dusky Standard
Adjudicative Competence
Competency Restoration
Jackson v. Indiana
The "Gibberish" Hook Facilitation
1. The Presentation
Distribute the "Transcript Segment" or display it on the board. Ask a student to read it aloud with a flat, serious tone.
2. The Poll
Ask: "Based solely on this transcript, raise your hand if you think this person is competent to stand trial."
Expect 90%+ to say "No."
3. The Complication
Reveal that the defendant can actually name his charges, knows the judge can sentence him to 10 years, and knows his lawyer's job is to "help him not go to jail." However, he believes the lawyer is a "static electricity entity."
4. Discussion Prompt
Does having delusions automatically mean you can't assist your lawyer? Where is the line?
Common Misconceptions
Equating Diagnosis with Incompetence: A defendant with schizophrenia can be competent if their symptoms are managed or don't interfere with legal understanding.
Confusing CST with Insanity: Remind students CST is about "now," Insanity is about "then."
Check for Understanding
"If a defendant refuses to talk to their lawyer because they think the lawyer is working for the CIA, is that a factual understanding issue or an assistance issue?"
ANSWER: Assistance to Counsel.
Background Reference: Dusky v. United States
Case Summary
Milton Dusky was charged with kidnapping. He suffered from schizophrenia but was found competent by a trial judge despite a psychiatrist's testimony that he was disoriented. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, establishing that it is not enough for a defendant to be "oriented to time and place" and have "some recollection of events." Instead, the test must be whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding—and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.
Activity Guide: Restoration Scenarios
Scenario A: The Intellectual Disability Case
Defendant has an IQ of 65. He understands "bad thing happened" but cannot grasp the concept of "plea bargaining" even after 6 months of classes.
Scenario B: The Medication Refusal
Defendant is delusional but medication would make him competent. He refuses. Can the state force him?
Recommended Reading
Grisso, T. (2003). Evaluating Competencies: Forensic Assessments and Instruments. Springer Science & Business Media.
Competency Assessment Worksheet Competency Assessment
Dusky Standard Application
Student Name: ________________________
Date: ________________________
Part I: Defining the Standard
The Dusky standard requires more than just knowing where you are. Based on your notes, define the two fundamental components (prongs) of competency:
Prong 1: Rational and Factual Understanding
Prong 2: Ability to Consult with Counsel
Part II: Clinical vs. Legal
Read the following psychiatric observations. Determine if the observation necessarily implies legal incompetence under Dusky.
Clinical Observation Likely Incompetent? Justification Defendant believes his attorney is a spy for a rival gang. Yes
No
| |
| Defendant is experiencing auditory hallucinations during the interview. |
Yes
No
| |
| Defendant cannot define the term "hearsay" or "perjury." |
Yes
No
| |
Part III: Case Analysis
"Mr. X is charged with grand larceny. During the evaluation, he identifies the judge as 'the guy in the dress who sends people to timeout.' He knows he is charged with 'taking a car that wasn't mine.' When asked about his lawyer, he says 'He's fine, but I'm going to fire him because I want to represent myself. I know the laws better because the voices tell me what the judge is thinking.'"
Evidence of Factual Understanding:
Evidence of Rational Impairment:
Preliminary Recommendation:
Would you recommend the court find Mr. X competent or incompetent? Briefly explain your reasoning using the Dusky prongs.
Reflection Question
If Mr. X is found incompetent and sent for restoration, what specific "treatment" goals would you set for the psychiatric team? Be specific to his legal understanding.
Insanity Defense Evolution Slides The Insanity Defense
From M'Naghten to Model Penal Code
The Case of Andrea Yates (2001)
In 2001, Andrea Yates drowned her five children in a bathtub. She suffered from severe postpartum psychosis and believed she was saving them from eternal damnation by Satan.
The Legal Tension:
She knew it was illegal (called 911).
She believed it was morally right.
"Does 'wrong' mean legally wrong or morally wrong?"
The verdict changed between trials (Guilty to Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity). Why? The standards shifted.
1. The M'Naghten Rule
"At the time of committing the act, the party was laboring under such a defect of reason... as not to know the nature and quality of the act, or if he did know it, that he did not know it was wrong."
The Cognitive Test
Focuses purely on what the defendant understood. Does not care about self-control.
Modern Use
The strictest standard. Used in approximately 50% of U.S. states today.
2. Expanding the Definition
Irresistible Impulse
Even if they know it's wrong, can they stop themselves? The "Policeman at the Elbow" test.
"Would you have committed the crime even if a police officer was standing right there?"
ALI / Model Penal Code
Combined standard. Lacked "substantial capacity" to appreciate wrongfulness OR conform conduct.
Cognitive + Volitional
The Hinckley Backlash
1984 Reform Act
Burden Shift
Switched from prosecution proving sanity to defense proving insanity by clear & convincing evidence.
Goodbye ALI
Many jurisdictions (including federal) dropped the volitional/control prong entirely.
Ultimate Issue
Experts prohibited from testifying to the "ultimate legal issue" (Is the defendant insane?).
Key Principle: Legal Insanity ≠ Psychiatric Diagnosis
Insanity Defense Case Guide Case Study Discussion
The State vs. Andrea Yates
Forensic Psychology
Lesson 2: Insanity Standards
The Clinical Profile
Andrea Yates had a documented history of severe postpartum depression with psychotic features, including multiple suicide attempts and hospitalizations. Following the birth of her fifth child, her condition deteriorated. She was under the care of a psychiatrist but had recently stopped taking her antipsychotic medication (Haldol) at her physician's recommendation.
Evidence for "Sane"
She waited until her husband left for work to act.
She called 911 immediately after the drownings.
She told the operator, "I need an ambulance and a police officer... I just did it."
She was able to provide her address and name clearly.
Evidence for "Insane"
She believed she was possessed by Satan.
She believed her children were "stunted" and doomed to hell if they were not killed while still innocent.
She showed no remorse or emotional affect during initial questioning.
Defense experts claimed she was in a state of "total psychotic break."
Discussion Framework
Prompt 1: Legal vs. Moral Wrongfulness
If Andrea knew drowning her children was against the law (calling 911), but believed it was a divine command to save their souls, should she be held criminally responsible? Which definition of "wrong" should the law use?
Prompt 2: The Texas Standard (M'Naghten)
Texas uses a strict M'Naghten standard (knowing the act was wrong). Why was she found guilty in 2002 but Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) in 2006? (Focus on the jury's interpretation of "wrongfulness").
Facilitator Guidance
Key Learning Point: Deific Decree
The Yates case is the classic example of the Deific Decree exception. Some jurisdictions argue that if a person believes God has commanded them to act, they are incapable of understanding "wrongfulness" because God's law supersedes human law in their delusional reality.
Watch Out For:
Students may confuse "Insanity" with "Incompetence." Remind them Yates was competent to stand trial (she understood the charges) but claimed insanity for the time of the act.
The Outcome:
In the 2006 retrial, the jury found her NGRI. She was committed to a high-security psychiatric hospital (Kerrville State Hospital), where she remains to this day. She was not "set free."
Debate Transition: Model Penal Code
Ask the class: "If we used the ALI/Model Penal Code standard (which includes the 'irresistible impulse' or volitional prong), would this case be easier or harder for the jury? Why?"
Insanity Standards Matrix Worksheet Legal Standards Matrix
Insanity Defense Comparative Analysis
Student Name: ________________________
Use the lecture and case study materials to complete the matrix below. This will serve as your primary reference for the final unit assessment.
Standard Primary Criterion (The Test) Cognitive, Volitional, or Both? M'Naghten Rule (1843) Irresistible Impulse Test ALI / Model Penal Code Insanity Defense Reform Act (1984)
Critical Analysis Question
"A defendant suffers from a delusion that they are a secret agent for the government. They believe they have been ordered to 'eliminate' a civilian who is actually a foreign spy. They kill the civilian in broad daylight, fully aware that murder is against civilian law, but believing they are acting under military command."
Under a strict M'Naghten standard, would this defendant likely be found NGRI? Why or why not?
Applying Standards to Andrea Yates
Standard 1: M'Naghten (Purely Cognitive)
Focus: Did she know it was wrong at the moment of the act?
Evidence AGAINST NGRI under this standard:
Evidence FOR NGRI under this standard:
Standard 2: ALI/Model Penal Code (Cognitive + Volitional)
Focus: Could she have conformed her behavior to the law?
Explain how including the 'Volitional' prong might change the outcome for Yates:
The Jury's Dilemma
If you were the foreman on the Andrea Yates jury, which legal standard do you believe is the most "just" for cases involving severe psychosis? Defend your choice in 3-5 sentences.
Malingering Assessment Slides Faking It
Assessing Malingering & Deception
What is Malingering?
DSM-V Definition
"The intentional production of false or grossly exaggerated physical or psychological symptoms, motivated by external incentives."
Secondary Gain Examples:
Evading Criminal Prosecution
Obtaining Financial Compensation
Obtaining Drugs (Drug Seeking)
Red Flags for the Clinician
Atypical Symptoms
Symptoms that don't fit any known clinical pattern (e.g., "hallucinations" that only happen when people are watching).
Over-the-Top Presentation
Claims of continuous auditory hallucinations or seeing black-and-white cartoons.
Antisocial Personality
Evaluation occurs in a medicolegal context and the person has a history of ASPD or legal non-compliance.
The Tools of Detection
SIRS-2
Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms
The "Gold Standard." Measures 8 primary scales of malingering, including Rare Symptoms, Improbable Failure, and Symptom Severity.
1
M-FAST: Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (Screening tool).
2
SIMS: Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology.
3
VIP: Validity Indicator Profile (for cognitive testing).
Can you spot a fake?
In our workshop activity, half of you will be "Defendants" instructed to fake a specific disorder. The other half will be "Clinicians" using a screening checklist.
The Clinician's Dilemma
"Better to let 10 malingerers through than to misdiagnose one truly psychotic person as a faker." — Discuss.
Malingering Workshop Guide Workshop Guide
Detecting Malingering Simulation
Forensic Psychology
Lesson 3: Malingering Workshop
Activity Overview
This simulation places students in the role of either a "Defendant" (attempting to malinger) or a "Forensic Clinician" (conducting a screening interview). The goal is to apply clinical detection strategies in real-time.
Role A: The Defendant
Instructions:
Choose one of the following "Malingering Briefs" to execute during the 10-minute interview:
Brief 1: The Psychotic Echo. Claim you hear voices that narrate everything you do. Try to make it sound "over-the-top."
Brief 2: The Amnesiac. Claim you cannot remember anything about the night of the crime, including your own middle name.
Brief 3: The Black-and-White Delusion. Claim you see the world as a 1920s cartoon.
Role B: The Clinician
Instructions:
Your task is to conduct a 10-minute screening. Use the "Malingering Screening Checklist" on the following page to record your observations.
Clinician Tip: Use "Improbable Symptom" questions. (e.g., "Do you find that when the voices speak, they smell like burnt rubber?")
Detection Strategy Cheat Sheet
1. Suggestibility Testing
Ask the defendant if they experience a symptom that doesn't exist.
"Many people with your condition report that their hallucinations disappear if they stand on one foot. Does that happen to you?"
Malingering sign: Defendant agrees to the bizarre or improbable symptom.
2. Floor Effect (Performance)
Ask extremely simple memory questions.
"I'm going to show you three shapes. Circle them back for me."
Malingering sign: Even severely psychotic patients usually get simple memory tests right. "Near-miss" errors (saying 2+2=5) are highly suspicious.
Debriefing Questions
Q1
Defendants: What was the hardest part of maintaining the "fake"? Did you find yourself exaggerating more or less as the interview went on?
Q2
Clinicians: Which "red flag" was the most obvious? Did any defendant manage to stay consistent enough to fool you?
Q3
Ethical Discussion: What are the consequences of a "False Positive" (labeling a truly ill person as a malingerer) in a capital murder trial?
Instructor Note
The goal isn't to make students "detectives," but to show them how clinical patterns of real mental illness are actually very difficult to mimic convincingly.
Malingering Detection Checklist Worksheet Detection Checklist
Malingering Screening Worksheet
Clinician Name: ________________________
Defendant ID / Role-Play Number:
____________________________________________________
Clinical Indicator (Red Flag) Observed? Behavioral Evidence / Quote Rare/Improbable Symptoms Agreeing to bizarre, non-clinical symptoms (e.g., "voices smell like blue").
|
| |
| Symptom Severity
Reporting symptoms that are constantly severe/incapacitating without fluctuation.
|
| |
| Atypical Hallucinations
Visual hallucinations in black-and-white or described like a movie.
|
| |
| Inconsistent Reporting
Stories shift or contradict when asked the same question 5 minutes later.
|
| |
| Cooperation/Affect
Being overly "helpful" in describing symptoms vs. the withdrawal typical of real psychosis.
|
| |
Diagnostic Impression
Based on your screening, do you suspect malingering? Provide a justification citing at least two red flags from your checklist.
Post-Simulation Analysis
Part A: The "Trap" Question
Describe one "Trap" or "Suggestibility" question you used (or could have used) to test the defendant's honesty. Why would a truly psychotic person answer differently than a malingerer?
Part B: The SIRS-2 Interpretation
The SIRS-2 uses "Rare Symptoms" as a primary scale. In forensic literature, truly disordered individuals almost never report symptoms that occur in less than 5% of the clinical population. If your defendant agreed that "words crawl off the page like ants," which scale of the SIRS-2 are they likely triggering?
Synthesis Challenge
"Malingering and true mental illness are not mutually exclusive."
Explain this statement. Can a person be genuinely schizophrenic and still malinger (exaggerate) their symptoms? Why might they do this?
Violence Risk Assessment Slides Violence Risk Assessment
Predicting Future Dangerousness
The Building Blocks of Risk
Static Factors
Historical & Unchanging
Age at first offense
Prior criminal history
Childhood trauma / stability
Substance abuse history
Dynamic Factors
Amenable to Change
Current psychotic symptoms
Access to weapons
Employment/Housing status
Compliance with treatment
The Methodology Duel
Actuarial Tools (e.g., VRAG)
"The Insurance Adjuster Approach"
Uses statistical formulas to compare an individual to a known group. Objective, high reliability, but ignores the unique individual.
Structured Professional Judgment (HCR-20)
"The Informed Expert Approach"
Combines actuarial data with clinical expertise. Allows for individualized risk management and considers dynamic factors.
Research Consensus: Actuarial generally outperforms "Unstructured" gut feelings.
Inside the HCR-20 (V3)
H
Historical
Past Violence, Relationships, Employment, Substance Use.
C
Clinical
Insight, Negative Attitudes, Active Symptoms, Impulsivity.
R
Risk Management
Plans, Living Situation, Supervision, Stress.
The goal isn't just to Predict, but to Prevent.
Who re-offended?
You will receive two offender files (Case A and Case B). Using your knowledge of Static and Dynamic factors, you must decide who posed the higher risk for re-offense within 5 years of release.
The Actuarial Challenge
"Numbers don't lie, but they don't know the future either." — Prepare your justifications.
Offender Risk Profiles Guide Offender Risk Profiles
Comparative Risk Analysis Activity
Case ID: 2026-VRA-04
CONFIDENTIAL
Case Profile A: "Marcus"
RELEASE YEAR: 2018
Historical / Static Factors
Age at First Arrest: 14 (Burglary)
Prior Violent Offenses: 3 (Assault, Robbery)
Family History: Significant domestic violence in childhood home.
Education: GED obtained in prison.
Clinical / Dynamic Factors
Insight: Understands triggers; participated in 2 years of CBT.
Employment: Confirmed job offer at a local warehouse upon release.
Living Situation: Moving in with supportive, stable sibling.
Substance Use: 18 months sober (AA attendance).
Case Profile B: "David"
RELEASE YEAR: 2018
Historical / Static Factors
Age at First Arrest: 24 (Theft)
Prior Violent Offenses: 1 (Aggravated Assault)
Family History: Stable upbringing; parents supportive.
Education: Two years of community college.
Clinical / Dynamic Factors
Insight: Minimal; blames the victim for the assault.
Employment: Unemployed; no current leads.
Living Situation: Halfway house; limited social support.
Substance Use: History of binge drinking; refuses treatment groups.
Facilitator Answer Key
The Outcome
David (Case B) re-offended within 18 months. Marcus (Case A) remained offense-free for the 5-year follow-up period.
Why Case B? (The Dynamic Shift)
Marcus has a worse historical (static) profile. An actuarial-only tool like the VRAG might score him as "High Risk" based purely on his young age at first arrest and prior history. However, his Dynamic Factors (employment, sobriety, insight, social support) are all protective.
David has a better historical profile but significant Dynamic Risks. His lack of insight (victim blaming) and lack of social/economic stability are powerful predictors of imminent re-offense.
Teaching Points
Actuarial Limitation
"Actuarial tools look at who a person *was*. Structured Professional Judgment (like HCR-20) looks at who a person *is now*."
The "Static Trap"
Remind students that static factors can only go up or stay the same (you can't un-ring the bell of a prior arrest). This can lead to permanent "labeling."
Discussion Close
"If we can change dynamic factors, we can change the risk."
Risk Factor Coding Worksheet Risk Factor Coding
Violence Risk Assessment Workshop
Evaluator: ________________________
Instructions
Using the case files provided by the instructor, code the presence of the following risk factors for BOTH Case A and Case B. Note whether the factor is Static (S) or Dynamic (D).
Risk Factor Type Case A Case B Notes / Justification Age at First Offense S / D
| |
| Employment Stability | S / D |
|
| |
| Substance Use History | S / D |
|
| |
| Insight into Triggers | S / D |
|
| |
| Prior Violent Acts | S / D |
|
| |
Final Prediction:
Based on your coding, who do you believe re-offended within 5 years? Justify with data from above.
Actuarial Reflection:
Which case would an actuarial tool (like the VRAG) likely miscategorize? Explain why.
Risk Management Strategy
In the HCR-20, the final step is identifying Risk Management (R) factors. Choose ONE of the cases from the previous page and design a 3-point intervention plan to reduce their risk of re-offending.
1. Addressing a Dynamic Risk Factor
How will you target a specific changeable factor (e.g., insight, substance use)?
2. Strengthening a Protective Factor
How will you use their strengths (e.g., family support, education) to buffer against risk?
3. Monitoring & Supervision
What specific checks (e.g., drug testing, curfew) are needed for this specific individual?
Final Thought
If Case A (Marcus) has all these protective factors, is he still "high risk"? At what point does a criminal record stop defining a person's future danger?
Expert Witness Slides The Expert Witness
Forensic Reporting & Testimony
Admissibility: Daubert Standard
The judge acts as the Gatekeeper of scientific evidence.
The Four Daubert Criteria:
1 Is it testable/falsifiable?
2 Has it been peer-reviewed?
3 What is the known error rate?
4 Is it generally accepted in the field?
Why it matters:
Prevents "Junk Science" from swaying a jury. This applies to psychological tests (like the Rorschach vs. the MMPI).
Forensic Reporting vs. Clinical Notes
The Clinical Audience
Treatment-focused, jargon-heavy, assumes collaboration.
"Patient presents with ego-dystonic auditory hallucinations and blunt affect."
The Legal Audience
Evidence-focused, plain language, assumes adversity.
"Mr. Smith reports hearing voices that he finds distressing, though these did not appear to impair his rational understanding of the charges."
Rule #1: If you didn't document it, it didn't happen.
Testifying: The Cross-Examination
The "Yes or No" Trap
Attorneys will try to force a binary answer.
Strategy: Answer briefly, then qualify. "Yes, but with important clinical context..."
Ad Hominem Attacks
Attacking your credentials or your fee.
Strategy: Remain calm. "I am being paid for my time and expertise, not my opinion."
The Hypothetical
"Doctor, if the facts were [different], would your opinion change?"
Strategy: Focus only on the facts of the actual case.
Objectivity is your only shield.
You are not an advocate for the prosecution or the defense. You are an advocate for the science and the truth of your findings.
The Final Simulation
"I'm going to question your report as if I'm a prosecutor who wants a conviction. Don't let me rattle you." — Let's begin.
Mock Cross Examination Guide Cross-Exam Simulation
Instructor's "Aggressive Counsel" Guide
Forensic Psychology
Lesson 5: Expert Testimony
The Facilitator Role
The goal of this simulation is not to "win," but to stress-test the students' ability to remain objective and professional under pressure. Your role is the opposing attorney seeking to discredit their forensic report.
Strategy 1: Attacking Credentials
"Now, Doctor [Student Name], you've only been a 'forensic psychology student' for, what, three months? And yet you're asking this jury to believe your opinion over the safety of the community? How many actual evaluations have you performed in the real world?"
Student Goal: Acknowledge training while refocusing on the data/methods used in the report (e.g., "I am presenting findings based on the HCR-20, which is a peer-reviewed, gold-standard instrument...").
Strategy 2: The "Hired Gun" Implication
"Isn't it true you were assigned this case by the defense? And if you had found the defendant was 'high risk,' they wouldn't have called you today, would they? You're here to tell them what they want to hear."
Student Goal: Maintain neutrality. "I am being compensated for my time to provide an objective clinical evaluation, regardless of the referral source."
Strategy 3: Pushing the Ultimate Issue
"Stop hiding behind your 'risk factors,' Doctor. Just tell the jury: Will he kill again? Yes or no?"
Student Goal: Avoid the "Ultimate Issue." "The law asks the jury to make that final determination. My role is to provide the clinical data on risk factors that inform that decision."
Testimony Grading Rubric
Criterion Target Behavior Weight Composure Maintains flat, professional affect; does not become defensive or angry when challenged. 30% Scientific Literacy Uses terms like "Risk Management," "Static Factors," and "Error Rate" correctly. 30% Legal Boundary Correctly refuses to answer "Ultimate Legal Issue" questions (e.g., "Is he insane?"). 20% Communication Avoids excessive jargon; explains complex psychological concepts to a "lay jury." 20%
Instructor Tips for Debriefing
Highlight the "Power Gap": Discuss how attorneys use physical positioning and pacing to intimidate.
The "Silent Trap": After a student answers, wait 5-10 seconds of silence. See if they "babble" to fill the void (common witness error).
Forensic Report Template Forensic Evaluation
Section Drafting Template
Privileged & Confidential
For Educational Use Only
To: The Honorable Judge [Name]
From: ________________________, Student Evaluator
RE: Defendant: [Case Profile Name]
Date: ________________________
Section I: Methodology
Briefly list the sources of data and psychological tests used (e.g., Clinical Interview, HCR-20, Review of Police Records).
Section II: Clinical Observations
Describe the defendant's mental state, symptoms (if any), and performance on malingering screens. Use professional, objective language.
Section III: Violence Risk Analysis
Summarize the primary Static (Historical) and Dynamic (Clinical/Risk) factors identified.
Section IV: Forensic Opinion
Opinion on Competency (Dusky Standard):
State whether the defendant possesses a factual and rational understanding and the ability to assist counsel. Use the case facts to support your conclusion.
Conclusion on Risk Management:
What are your specific recommendations for reducing the likelihood of future violence?
Evaluator's Attestation
I hereby certify that the above evaluation was conducted with the highest degree of clinical objectivity and in accordance with the ethical principles of forensic psychology. My findings are based on the available data at the time of evaluation.
Signature of Evaluator
Credentials
End of Report Template
