The legal process is fraught with uncertainty even without the added complexity of competency. Defendants frequently ask about the possible outcomes of a competency evaluation. The evaluator is limited to one of only a few possible opinions about a defendant’s competency, although the ultimate decision is in the hands of the judge.
One opinion is that the defendant is competent. In short, this means the evaluator believes that the defendant does not have a mental illness interfering with their ability to meaningfully proceed through the court process. Most people would be considered competent to stand trial.
Another opinion is that the defendant is currently incompetent but can be restored to competency. This is sometimes phrased as “incompetent but restorable.” Such individuals usually have a treatable mental illness, such as Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder, and the evaluator expects that with proper treatment the individual’s symptoms will improve. The evaluator might also believe that the person would benefit from focused education about the legal system.
The third possible opinion is that the defendant is incompetent and cannot be restored to competency. These individuals may have an intellectual disability, dementia, or another mental illness that is resistant to treatment.
In very rare circumstances an evaluator might conclude that there is not enough information to form an opinion. These situations usually involve an individual who is uncooperative, which could be deliberate or due to an underlying mental illness. Occasionally these situations are due to conflicting or contradictory information. In such cases the evaluator will usually recommend an inpatient competency evaluation.
In another post we’ll explore what happens after the evaluation is delivered to the court.