title: A pilot survey of trial court judges' opinions on pro se competence after Indiana v. Edwards.
abstract: In Indiana v. Edwards, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a higher standard may be required for pro se competence (PSC) than for competence to stand trial (CST). However, the Court refrained from elaborating a specific standard. The trial judge is in the best position to make more fine-tuned mental capacity decisions. This pilot study surveyed trial judges' opinions about PSC to help forensic evaluators structure their assessments. Eighteen of 400 New York State trial judges surveyed replied. Trial judges regarded disorders of cognitive impairment (n = 10) and psychosis (n = 4) to be potentially limiting for PSC. Responses relating to which domains should be assessed were heterogeneous, but the most common were intellectual and analytic abilities (n = 10), legal knowledge/experience (n = 9), and language abilities (n = 8). Several judges listed factors that are not traditionally part of CST evaluations, such as having a rational reason for proceeding pro se and a willingness to accept the assistance of standby counsel.
authors.affiliation: SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA.
authors.forename: James L
authors.initials: JL
authors.lastname: Knoll
authors.forename: Cecilia
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Leonard
authors.forename: Andrew R
authors.initials: AR
authors.lastname: Kaufman
authors.forename: Bruce B
authors.initials: BB
authors.lastname: Way
mesh_terms: D001290:Attitude; D003625:Data Collection; D005555:Forensic Psychiatry; D007196:Indiana; D016743:Mental Competency / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000523:psychology; D009518:New York; D035521:Supreme Court Decisions; D014481:United States