The judge's view of competency evaluations. II.
Twenty trial court judges were surveyed to determine what information they considered pertinent in psychiatric examinations for competence. These judges showed a clear understanding of what they were asking for in ordering the examinations but also showed a significant tendency to use the competency exam to advise them about other issues in addition (e.g., dangerousness or the need for treatment). As a group the judges appeared to be eager for psychiatric input. Typical judges could be described as pragmatic in their views of psychiatry in the courtroom, having a relatively low level of expectation but a high degree of satisfaction with the psychiatric opinions they receive.
Owens
H
H
Forensic Psychiatry Clinic for the Criminal and Supreme Courts, New York, NY 10013.
Rosner
R
R
Harmon
R B
RB
D003416:Criminal Law; D003625:Data Collection; D005104:Expert Testimony; D005555:Forensic Psychiatry; D006801:Humans; D007603:Jurisprudence; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis; D014481:United States