The Influence of Time and Treatment on Recall of Mental State at the Time of Offense: Incompetent Defendants and Evaluation of Insanity

Abstract

Evaluation of insanity is an inherently difficult task due to its retrospective nature and reliance on a defendant's recall of events. Eliciting a defendant's version of events early in the criminal justice process is advisable to guard against inaccurate or incomplete recall due to normal forgetting and changes in circumstance and mental status. However, depending on the jurisdiction of examination, postponing this inquiry may be necessary to protect a defendant's right against self-incrimination. Such circumstances often occur in the context of simultaneous court-ordered evaluations of competency to stand trial and insanity. A case example illustrates the influence of time and psychiatric treatment on a defendant's recollection of an alleged offense and provides a framework for discussion of the importance of protecting the rights of indigent defendants, even if potentially critical information is lost as a result.

Keywords:

• forensic evaluation
• mental state at the time of offense
• competency to stand trial
• psychosis
• episodic memory

Notes

¹ Estelle v. Smith (1981) is often cited as preventing self-incriminating statements made during the course of a competency evaluation from being used against a defendant during later phases of trial; however, this case limits the use of such statements only if the defendant is not notified at the outset of the right to remain silent and that any statement may be used against him or her during the guilt or penalty phases of trial.

² Identifying information and several case details were altered to protect confidentiality.

³ Interview of the victim (via a victim advocate) and the defendant's siblings revealed that no such contacts had occurred. All sources indicated that the victim first encountered the defendant in her capacity as a shelter worker.