For example, in 1989, Kenneth L. Curtis of Stratford, Connecticut was found mentally incompetent to stand trial following the murder of his estranged girlfriend.
But years later, as he had attended college and received good grades, this ruling was reversed, and he was ordered to stand trial.
[3] Generally, in the United States, a person has the capacity or competence to make the decision to enter into a contract if he can understand and appreciate, to the extent relevant, all of the following: Competency was used to determine whether individual Native Americans could use land allotted to them from the General Allotment Act (GAA), also known as the Dawes Act.
The Act of June 25, 1910 further amends the GAA to give the Secretary of the Interior the power to sell the land of deceased allottees or issue patent and fee to legal heirs.
[6] This decision is based on a determination made by the Secretary of Interior whether the legal heirs are ‘competent’ or ‘incompetent’ to manage their own affairs.
In the United States, legal proceedings in immigration court typically revolves around the removal of a non-citizen national due to his unlawful presence in the country.
[10] In this particular setting, non-citizens are presumed to be competent as determined by Matter of M-A-M where they have "a rational and factual understanding of the nature and object of the proceedings, can consult with the attorney or representative if there is one, and has a reasonable opportunity to examine and present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
"[11] The language in Matter of M-A-M is similar and holds aspects to Dusky v. United States, but in the case that there is evidence of incompetency in the non-citizen, there are two instances where it differs.
The first being that the court hearing may proceed regardless if the individual lacks "the competency to participate meaningfully in them" as long as there is the appropriate safeguards in place to ensure a fair trial.
[13] However, questions of competency can be raised regarding any person who might issue a testimony (e.g., defendant, witnesses, experts) and can occur in both criminal and civil trials.
[17] Historically, witness competency rules in most American states prohibited testimony by slaves and free blacks.
[20] Research suggests that for witnesses, the two biggest problems that might interfere with their ability to remember the event are time and age.
For example, in People v. Miller (1988), a speech therapist was permitted to translate for a victim with cerebral palsy who had difficulty testifying.
[24] Incompetent individuals cannot provide informed consent, so other decision-makers (such as a guardian or health care proxy) may be identified in their stead.
[30] A patient who experiences delusions which are out of touch with reality may understand that antipsychotic medication is a traditional treatment for schizophrenia, but believe that in their case, they are not mentally ill and taking this medicine would make them catatonic.
[24][30] An evaluator may question a patient's competence if some substantial consequence (e.g., limb amputation) is thought as less important than something relatively minor (e.g., hair loss).
If the decision to refuse treatment appears to stem directly from mental illness, this may indicate a patient's decision-making process is not rational or reasonable.
[24] Faretta v. California specified that the competency to waive the right to counsel should not be determined based on the criminal defendant's understanding of legal jargon.
[24] In order for the waiver to be intelligent, the criminal defendant should understand the disadvantages of waiving their right to counsel and representing themselves.
[36] In order to obtain evidence in criminal cases, the ability for law enforcement to conduct searches and/or seizures can be implemented.
[37] The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."