Sometimes the wheels of justice grind to a halt. Earlier this month the judge presiding over the Jared Loughner case ordered a competency to stand trial evaluation.
Loughner is the young man from Tucson, Arizona who is charged with shooting the Democratic Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords, wounding fourteen others, and killing six people. The shootings occurred on January 8th. I posted this blog about the case.
Loughner has appeared in court three times. During each appearance he remained mostly silent with a strange smile on his face. One reporter described him as having "his usual smirk" during the most recent hearing. (azcentral.com/arizonarepublic)
I remember being struck with Loughner's eerie smile in his mug shoot. He looked to me to be mentally disturbed. His expression was certainly bizarre, considering the context. In psychiatric jargon, a clinician might write that Loughner's "affect was inappropriate." Inappropriate affect is a hallmark symptom of psychosis.
Larry A. Burns, a San Diego Federal District Court Judge, was appointed to preside over the case. He was appointed after judges from Arizona recused themselves from the case. Judge Burns ordered the evaluation and said, "I have concerns given the defendant's affect."
The judge probably suspects that Loughner is delusional and may not be competent to stand trial. The competency evaluation is the most common type of forensic evaluation. The evaluation assesses whether a defendant has "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and have a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him." Dusky vs. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 1960
The fairness of our adversarial system of justice depends on a defendant's right to meaningfully participate in criminal proceedings. When a defendant is found incompetent, all legal proceedings stop. He can not resolve the case through trial or plea. His fate is determined by the severity of the legal charges. If he is charged with a misdemeanor, the criminal charges are dropped and he is admitted to a state psychiatric hospital. An incompetent defendant charged with a felony, on the other hand, is sent to a secure forensic hospital. He is treated and returned to court to face his charges after he is considered improved and competent to stand trial.
I have conducted thousands of competency to stand trial evaluations. The evaluation is typically requested by the defendant's attorney since he or she is in the best position to assess the defendant's mental state. I was surprised to learn that that did not occur in the Loughner case. The prosecution requested the competency evaluation while Judy Clarke, Loughner's attorney, opposed it.
The prosecutor, Assistant United States Attorney Wallace H. Kleindienst, asked for the evaluation and told the court that Loughner heard voices and had "severe mental issues." He also told the judge that there was evidence that Loughner was suspicious of the court system and thought the FBI and CIA were investigating him. The prosecutor also commented, "Certainly every murder is irrational, but this one is more irrational than others." (nytimes.com/loughner)
Loughner is currently being evaluated at a facility in Springfield, Missouri. Hopefully, the competency evaluation will shed light on what he was experiencing at the time of the shooting. Will he be diagnosed with a psychotic disorder? Will he be prescribed antipsychotic medications? Will he be found competent or incompetent? And ultimately, will he use a psychiatric defense at trial?
