A defendant’s mental state is often a key issue in criminal proceedings. Mental illness or defects could affect the defendant in two ways.
First, the defendant may lack the mental capacity needed to stand trial. In other words, his competency could be so low that he cannot understand the legal proceedings he’s involved in. In such a situation, the prosecution cannot proceed against the defendant unless/until his faculties are restored.
Second, a mentally ill defendant may lack criminal responsibility for what he’s done because of his psychosis . This is generally known as the “insanity defense.”
If the defendant’s competency or sanity are questionable, his attorney will likely file a motion for a court-ordered evaluation pursuant to M.G.L. c. 123, Section 15a.
The evaluation can be done by the court clinic or by a private psychologist. (Defense counsel can move for state funds to pay for the private evaluation.)
There are pros and cons to both.
The court clinic is very easy to use. The clinicians know exactly what they are doing and there are few problems scheduling evaluations or getting reports to the court.
Additionally, evaluations done by the clinic are rarely contested. Prosecutors almost never challenge the clinician’s credentials. Nor do they dispute the validity of the court clinic’s determination regarding the defendant’s mental state.
There is, however, one major downside to using the court clinic. The clinicians are far more likely than private psychologists to suggest forced hospitalization of the defendant.
Under Section 15b of M.G.L. c. 123, the clinician who conducts the defendant’s evaluation can ask the court to have the defendant hospitalized for 20 days (in some cases 40 days) for additional observation.
The threat of hospitalization is almost completely eliminated when the defendant chooses a private psychologist to do the evaluation. This is the biggest advantage of a private evaluation.
But defendants who choose a private shrink should anticipate the prosecutor challenging the evaluation results if they are favorable to the defense.
Additionally, the judge himself may look askance at such an evaluation. And, ultimately, it may be necessary to submit the defendant to yet another evaluation—this time with the court clinic–in order to appease the court.