205:
around 11-30% are deemed incompetent. Competency to stand trial depends only on the defendants current mental state and is entirely separate from their mental state at the time of the crime. CST does not necessarily certify that a defendant is of sound mental state, only that they are capable of understanding what is happening. Even severe mental disorders such as psychosis and amnesia do not automatically make a defendant incompetent. Studies found that about 2/3 of defendants suffering from severe mental disorders were found competent.
25:
278:(2002) case used the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause to determine that those with intellectual disabilities are not competent to be executed due to diminished culpability. Otherwise put, those with intellectual disabilities are exempt from execution because they are insufficiently responsible for their crimes. The Supreme Court of the United States in
488:
2 (competent). This test revolves around key elements of legal understanding. However, it elicits more extensive and varied responses than the yes or no format of the MMPI-2. Critics of the
Competency Screening test argue that this makes it more difficult for evaluators to objectively score and harder test to teach evaluators how to conduct.
487:
The
Competency Screening Test was developed by researchers at the Harvard Laboratory of Community Psychiatry in 1971. The test uses 22 fill in the blank style questions such as "If the jury finds me guilty, I will _______." Each answer is given a score of 0 (incompetent), 1 (uncertain competence), or
400:
upheld the defendant's conviction. The court rejected Mr. Morin’s argument, among others, that the district court violated his due process rights by refusing to allow him to waive competency at trial. The court held that since his competency to stand trial was never challenged, the issue of whether
231:
protects people deemed insane from being executed because execution of an insane individual would be a cruel and unusual punishment. In this decision, Justice Powell more clearly stated that to be considered sane, and therefore fit to be executed, a person must firstly be aware that they are about to
426:
doubt is raised. While a judge has the power to overrule the conclusion of a competency test, this power is rarely exercised. Judges agree with evaluator conclusions over 80% of the time. In some states they agree up to 99% of the time. Generally, the decision of whether a defendant is competent is
259:
professional must make the competence evaluation and, if the inmate is found incompetent, provide treatment to aid in the inmate gaining competency in order that the execution can take place. Providing treatment to an individual to enable that person to become competent to be executed places mental
247:
case, Scott Louis
Panetti had schizophrenia and was under the delusional belief that he was being executed due to religious persecution rather than because he committed murder. While he may have understood that he was to receive capital punishment due to his murder conviction, his extreme delusions
161:
in which the Court affirmed a defendant's right to have a competency evaluation before proceeding to trial. Competence to stand trial was defined by the court as the defendant's ability to consult rationally with an attorney to aid in his own defense and to have a rational and factual understanding
204:
A defendant is deemed competent to stand trial if they are found to have a sufficient present ability to understand and participate in legal proceedings. Every year just over 5% of all felony defendants, over 60,000 people are evaluated for competency to stand trial(CST). Of those evaluated, only
409:
A defendant who has been deemed incompetent to stand trial may be required to undergo mental health treatment, including court-ordered hospitalization and the administration of treatment against the defendant's wishes, in an effort to render the defendant competent to stand trial. A majority of
337:
affirmed the right to a competency evaluation, the specifics of the evaluation remain ambiguous. Each evaluator must decide what is meant by "sufficient present ability" and "has a rational as well as a factual understanding" as set forth in the Dusky decision. One common principle is clear in
146:
were performed every year in the United States. A 1973 estimate put the number of competence evaluations at 25,000 to 36,000 each year. There are indications that the number of evaluations of criminal defendants is rising. One comparison of estimates between 1983 and 2004 suggest the annual
217:
relied on the argument that execution's purpose is to provide retribution to the aggrieved party and to act as a deterrent against similar acts. Using this foundation, the court found that there are some people for whom execution is not appropriate and would not be able to serve either its
170:
requesting that his conviction be reversed on the grounds that he was not competent to stand trial at the time of the proceeding. The court decided to grant the writ, based on a lack of recent evidence that the petitioner was competent at the time of the trial. The case was remanded to the
268:
takes the position that ethically it is a physician's duty to provide treatment, regardless of the patient's legal situation. Others feel that it is unethical to treat a person in order to execute them. Most restorations of competency are accomplished through psychiatric medication.
142:'s Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards stated in 1994 that the issue of a defendant's current mental incompetence is the single most important issue in the criminal mental health field, noting that an estimated 24,000 to 60,000 forensic evaluations of a criminal defendant's
478:
uses 567 true-false questions to determine a defendant’s levels of psychopathology. While the MMPI-2 is generally quite good at detecting psychological distress, it has been criticized for not adequately focusing on the core issues of CST, an understanding of the legal system.
658:
430:
Who is deemed qualified to conduct a competency evaluation varies from state to state. Evaluators are typically psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, or social workers. While there are several widely used tests for CST, there is no one standardized examination.
218:
retributive or deterrent purposes. There are three ways in which one can be considered incompetent for execution: being deemed insane, having an intellectual disability, or have committed the crime subject to capital punishment while a minor.
504:
was initially 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.
184:(1993) the Supreme Court enforced the Dusky standard as the Federal Standard for competence to stand trial. Although the statutes addressing competency vary from state to state in the United States, the two elements outlined in the
366:. The defense must only prove that the defendant is more likely than not incompetent. In other words, the judge must only be convinced that more than 50% of the evidence indicates the defendant is incompetent.
1200:
242:
understand why they are being executed. To rationally understand the reason for execution, a death row inmate must believe that they are being executed because of the crime they are charged with. In the
196:
Within the US criminal justice system, competence may be raised as an issue before trial, before a guilty plea, or in relation to whether a person convicted of a capital offense may be executed.
188:
decision are held in common as the minimum federal requirement to be deemed competent. The defendant must understand the charges and have the ability to aid his attorney in his own defense.
422:
and mental state at the time of the examination. While CST is typically raised as a pretrial matter, a CST evaluation may be requested by the judge or either attorney at any point if a
392:
Where a defendant does not raise the issue of mental competence before trial, the issue of competence may be deemed waived in the event of a conviction and appeal. For example, in
358:(1992) established a presumption of competency. Much like a presumption of innocence, a defendant is presumed competent to stand trial unless it is proven otherwise. Unlike a
587:
434:
While not formally part of the Dusky standard, evaluators commonly consider the defendant's ability to perform the following 10 trial related tasks when deciding competency:
228:
35:
410:
defendants who are initially deemed incompetent are eventually restored to competency. Various studies report 60% to 90% of defendants have their competency restored.
1353:
768:
397:
1257:
Pirelli, Gianni; Zapf, Patricia A. (2020-01-23). "An
Attempted Meta-Analysis of the Competency Restoration Research: Important Findings for Future Directions".
1139:
Roesch, R., Zapf, P. A., Golding, S. L., & Skeem, J. L. (1999). Defining and assessing competency to stand trial. In A. K. Hess & I. B. Weiner (Eds.),
475:
553:
127:
and the effect that the penalty will have. In further rulings, competence was also enlarged to include evaluation of the defendant's competence to
1299:
Kois, L. E., Chauhan, P., & Warren, J. I. (2019). Competence to stand trial and criminal responsibility. In N. Brewer & A. B. Douglass,
284:(2005) decided that it was unconstitutional to execute individuals for crimes committed under the age of majority using the same reasoning in
882:
871:
Melton, Gary B.; Petrila, John; Poythress, Norman G.; Slobogin, Christopher; Otto, Randy K.; Mossman, Douglas; Condie, Lois O. (2017-12-22).
744:
214:
167:
104:
1003:
791:
69:
806:
Bonnie, R. J., & Grisso, T. (2000). Adjudicative competence and youthful offenders. In T. Grisso & R. G. Schwartz (Eds.),
47:
1358:
1091:
632:
1317:
Appeal from a United States
District Court demonstrating the nuances of competency evaluation and subsequent expert testimony
1324:
1154:
533:
296:
It has been estimated that approximately 90 percent of all criminal cases in the United States are settled through guilty
338:
forensic evaluations, however. Forensic evaluators cannot reach a finding independent of the facts of the case at hand.
1348:
265:
172:
51:
474:
One widely used test for competency is the
Minnesota Multi-phasic Personality Inventory 2nd Edition (MMPI-2). The
143:
874:
Psychological
Evaluations for the Courts, Fourth Edition: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers
232:
be executed and secondly know why they are being executed. This requirement was extended by the
Supreme Court's
175:
for a new hearing to evaluate Dusky's competence to stand trial, and for a new trial if he was found competent.
513:
359:
139:
820:
Cooper, Virginia G.; Zapf, Patricia A. (2003). "Predictor variables in competency to stand trial decisions".
376:
560:
501:
381:
354:
157:
418:
Competency to stand trial is generally determined via a pretrial evaluation of the defendant's overall
363:
234:
944:
1229:
1155:"Behavior of the Defendant in a Competency-to-Stand-Trial Evaluation Becomes an Issue in Sentencing"
701:
362:, where the defendant must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, CST is determined only by a
256:
155:
The standard for competency evaluation applied in US courts is based on the
Supreme Court decision
1333:
1322:
Behavior of the
Defendant in a Competency-to-Stand-Trial Evaluation Becomes an Issue in Sentencing
1116:
1282:
853:
762:
348:
274:
223:
163:
995:
991:
Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers
989:
1274:
999:
964:
878:
845:
837:
787:
750:
740:
670:
659:"AAPL Practice Guideline for the Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial"
497:
1266:
956:
829:
520:
309:
280:
180:
132:
100:
86:
922:
1328:
261:
1316:
1043:
611:
178:
The case set the current standard for adjudicative competency in the United States. In
1342:
1286:
419:
124:
116:
83:
1095:
657:
Douglas Mossman, MD; Stephen G.; Noffsinger, MD; Peter Ash, MD; et al. (2007).
636:
857:
314:
1270:
147:
number rose from 50,000 to 60,000 criminal competency evaluations respectively.
1321:
1166:
872:
321:
is the same as the competency standard for proceeding to trial as established in
635:. MacArthur Research Network for Mental Health and the Law. 2001. Archived from
401:
he was entitled to waive competency to stand trial was properly not considered.
16:
The means used to determine if a criminal defendant is competent to stand trial
833:
754:
380:
malingering or feigning illness during a competency evaluation was held to be
1278:
1230:"Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 123 S.Ct. 2174, 156 L.Ed.2d 197 (2003)"
1094:. The MacArthur Research Network on Mental Health and the Law. Archived from
841:
786:(1988 ed.). Sarasota FL: Professional Resource Exchange. pp. 1–23.
423:
94:
849:
674:
123:, meaning that he must be capable of understanding why he has received the
968:
960:
737:
Forensic and legal psychology : psychological science applied to law
120:
1067:
1019:
898:
318:
112:
1117:"Mental Competency Evaluations: Guidelines for Judges and Attorneys"
1334:
Mental Competency Evaluations: Guidelines for Judges and Attorneys
450:
understand the roles of the judge, defense counsel, and prosecutor
301:
108:
582:
580:
313:, 1993, the Supreme Court held that the competency standard for
297:
128:
808:
Youth on trial: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice
945:"The debate on treating individuals incompetent for execution"
18:
97:
to understand and rationally participate in a court process.
784:
Competency to Stand Trial Evaluations: A Manual for Practice
107:
as the evaluation of a defendant's competence to proceed to
459:
aid in developing a strategy for cross-examining witnesses
1205:
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
1159:
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
663:
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
828:(4). American Psychological Association (APA): 423–436.
1020:"U.S. Reports: Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)"
994:(2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. pp.
899:"U.S. Reports: Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986)"
447:
understand the possible penalties if they are convicted
43:
1068:"U.S. Reports: Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)"
1259:
Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice
943:Heilbrun, K; Radelet, ML; Dvoskin, J (1 May 1992).
325:. A higher standard of competency is not required.
238:(2007) decision, to include that a person needs to
111:. In a subsequent ruling, the Court held that any
1072:Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA
1024:Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA
903:Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA
465:make appropriate decisions about trial strategy
398:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
272:The Supreme Court of the United States in the
213:In determining competence to be executed, the
162:of the charges. Dusky presented a petition of
1092:"The MacArthur Adjudicative Competence Study"
702:"Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960)"
633:"The MacArthur Adjudicative Competence Study"
32:The examples and perspective in this article
8:
483:Harvard Laboratory Competency Screening Test
1201:"Right to Waive Competency to Stand Trial"
1143:(pp. 327–349). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
810:(pp. 73–103). University of Chicago Press.
767:: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
735:Costanzo, Mark; Krauss, Daniel A. (2021).
453:trust and communicate with defense counsel
221:The Supreme Court of the United States in
696:
694:
692:
690:
606:
604:
252:understanding why he was to be executed.
70:Learn how and when to remove this message
438:understand their current legal situation
545:
1354:Mental health law in the United States
760:
1252:
1250:
119:must be evaluated as competent to be
93:is an assessment of the ability of a
7:
730:
728:
726:
724:
722:
1141:The handbook of forensic psychology
1122:. American Judges Association. 2002
441:understand the charges against them
131:guilty and competence to waive the
1303:(pp. 293–317). The Guilford Press.
1265:(2). Informa UK Limited: 134–162.
1153:Darani, Shaheen (3 January 2006).
949:The American Journal of Psychiatry
508:Some other notable cases include:
462:act appropriately during the trial
427:left to psychological evaluators.
384:and led to an increased sentence.
215:Supreme Court of the United States
105:Supreme Court of the United States
103:was originally established by the
14:
1301:Psychological science and the law
1048:LII / Legal Information Institute
588:"Ford v. Wainwright 477 U.S. 399"
388:Waiver of challenge to competency
23:
444:understand the pleas available
1:
1271:10.1080/24732850.2020.1714398
534:List of criminal competencies
364:preponderance of the evidence
1189:338 F.3d 838 (8th Cir. 2003)
923:"Executing the Mentally Ill"
266:National Medical Association
554:"Competency to stand trial"
260:health professionals in an
227:(1986) determined that the
46:, discuss the issue on the
1375:
1199:Mueller, Theodore (2005).
612:"Godinez, Warden v. Moran"
292:Competence to plead guilty
877:. Guilford Publications.
405:Restoration of competence
342:Presumption of competence
209:Competence to be executed
200:Competence to stand trial
144:competency to stand trial
1165:(1): 126. Archived from
514:Frendak v. United States
360:presumption of innocence
317:or waiving the right to
140:American Bar Association
834:10.1023/a:1024089117535
782:Grisso, Thomas (1988).
377:United States v. Binion
255:The court ruled that a
1359:Management cybernetics
1187:United States v. Morin
925:. Sage. April 22, 1986
822:Law and Human Behavior
502:Stratford, Connecticut
394:United States v. Morin
382:obstruction of justice
346:Later cases including
335:Dusky v. United States
323:Dusky v. United States
186:Dusky v. United States
158:Dusky v. United States
988:Gary, Melton (1997).
961:10.1176/ajp.149.5.596
456:help locate witnesses
414:Methods of evaluation
370:Feigning incompetence
245:Panetti v. Quarterman
235:Panetti v. Quarterman
91:competency evaluation
1044:"ATKINS v. VIRGINIA"
614:. Cornell Law School
590:. Cornell Law School
355:Medina v. California
52:create a new article
44:improve this article
34:may not represent a
1349:Forensic psychology
248:prevented him from
1327:2007-12-13 at the
669:(4 Suppl): S3–72.
349:Cooper v. Oklahoma
286:Atkins v. Virginia
275:Atkins v. Virginia
224:Ford v. Wainwright
164:writ of certiorari
884:978-1-4625-3266-7
746:978-1-319-24488-0
80:
79:
72:
54:, as appropriate.
1366:
1304:
1297:
1291:
1290:
1254:
1245:
1244:
1242:
1240:
1226:
1220:
1219:
1217:
1216:
1196:
1190:
1184:
1178:
1177:
1175:
1174:
1150:
1144:
1137:
1131:
1130:
1128:
1127:
1121:
1113:
1107:
1106:
1104:
1103:
1088:
1082:
1081:
1079:
1078:
1064:
1058:
1057:
1055:
1054:
1040:
1034:
1033:
1031:
1030:
1016:
1010:
1009:
985:
979:
978:
976:
975:
940:
934:
933:
931:
930:
919:
913:
912:
910:
909:
895:
889:
888:
868:
862:
861:
817:
811:
804:
798:
797:
779:
773:
772:
766:
758:
732:
717:
716:
714:
712:
698:
685:
684:
682:
681:
654:
648:
647:
645:
644:
629:
623:
622:
620:
619:
608:
599:
598:
596:
595:
584:
575:
574:
572:
571:
565:
559:. Archived from
558:
550:
521:Estelle v. Smith
310:Godinez v. Moran
300:, rather than a
281:Roper v. Simmons
229:Eighth Amendment
181:Godinez v. Moran
133:right to counsel
87:criminal justice
75:
68:
64:
61:
55:
27:
26:
19:
1374:
1373:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1339:
1338:
1329:Wayback Machine
1313:
1308:
1307:
1298:
1294:
1256:
1255:
1248:
1238:
1236:
1228:
1227:
1223:
1214:
1212:
1198:
1197:
1193:
1185:
1181:
1172:
1170:
1152:
1151:
1147:
1138:
1134:
1125:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1114:
1110:
1101:
1099:
1090:
1089:
1085:
1076:
1074:
1066:
1065:
1061:
1052:
1050:
1042:
1041:
1037:
1028:
1026:
1018:
1017:
1013:
1006:
987:
986:
982:
973:
971:
942:
941:
937:
928:
926:
921:
920:
916:
907:
905:
897:
896:
892:
885:
870:
869:
865:
819:
818:
814:
805:
801:
794:
781:
780:
776:
759:
747:
734:
733:
720:
710:
708:
700:
699:
688:
679:
677:
656:
655:
651:
642:
640:
631:
630:
626:
617:
615:
610:
609:
602:
593:
591:
586:
585:
578:
569:
567:
563:
556:
552:
551:
547:
542:
530:
494:
485:
472:
416:
407:
390:
372:
344:
331:
315:pleading guilty
294:
262:ethical dilemma
211:
202:
194:
153:
76:
65:
59:
56:
41:
28:
24:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1372:
1370:
1362:
1361:
1356:
1351:
1341:
1340:
1337:
1336:
1331:
1319:
1312:
1311:External links
1309:
1306:
1305:
1292:
1246:
1234:Google Scholar
1221:
1191:
1179:
1145:
1132:
1108:
1083:
1059:
1035:
1011:
1004:
980:
955:(5): 596–605.
935:
914:
890:
883:
863:
812:
799:
792:
774:
745:
718:
706:Google Scholar
686:
649:
624:
600:
576:
544:
543:
541:
538:
537:
536:
529:
526:
525:
524:
517:
498:Kenneth Curtis
493:
490:
484:
481:
471:
468:
467:
466:
463:
460:
457:
454:
451:
448:
445:
442:
439:
415:
412:
406:
403:
389:
386:
371:
368:
343:
340:
330:
327:
293:
290:
210:
207:
201:
198:
193:
190:
173:district court
152:
149:
78:
77:
38:of the subject
36:worldwide view
31:
29:
22:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1371:
1360:
1357:
1355:
1352:
1350:
1347:
1346:
1344:
1335:
1332:
1330:
1326:
1323:
1320:
1318:
1315:
1314:
1310:
1302:
1296:
1293:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1253:
1251:
1247:
1235:
1231:
1225:
1222:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1195:
1192:
1188:
1183:
1180:
1169:on 2007-12-13
1168:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1149:
1146:
1142:
1136:
1133:
1118:
1112:
1109:
1098:on 2007-12-02
1097:
1093:
1087:
1084:
1073:
1069:
1063:
1060:
1049:
1045:
1039:
1036:
1025:
1021:
1015:
1012:
1007:
1005:1-57230-236-4
1001:
997:
993:
992:
984:
981:
970:
966:
962:
958:
954:
950:
946:
939:
936:
924:
918:
915:
904:
900:
894:
891:
886:
880:
876:
875:
867:
864:
859:
855:
851:
847:
843:
839:
835:
831:
827:
823:
816:
813:
809:
803:
800:
795:
793:0-943158-51-6
789:
785:
778:
775:
770:
764:
756:
752:
748:
742:
738:
731:
729:
727:
725:
723:
719:
707:
703:
697:
695:
693:
691:
687:
676:
672:
668:
664:
660:
653:
650:
639:on 2007-12-02
638:
634:
628:
625:
613:
607:
605:
601:
589:
583:
581:
577:
566:on 2007-08-20
562:
555:
549:
546:
539:
535:
532:
531:
527:
523:
522:
518:
516:
515:
511:
510:
509:
506:
503:
499:
492:Notable cases
491:
489:
482:
480:
477:
469:
464:
461:
458:
455:
452:
449:
446:
443:
440:
437:
436:
435:
432:
428:
425:
421:
420:mental status
413:
411:
404:
402:
399:
395:
387:
385:
383:
379:
378:
369:
367:
365:
361:
357:
356:
351:
350:
341:
339:
336:
328:
326:
324:
320:
316:
312:
311:
305:
303:
299:
291:
289:
287:
283:
282:
277:
276:
270:
267:
263:
258:
253:
251:
246:
241:
237:
236:
230:
226:
225:
219:
216:
208:
206:
199:
197:
191:
189:
187:
183:
182:
176:
174:
169:
168:Supreme Court
165:
160:
159:
150:
148:
145:
141:
136:
134:
130:
126:
125:death penalty
122:
118:
117:death penalty
114:
110:
106:
102:
98:
96:
92:
88:
85:
84:United States
74:
71:
63:
53:
49:
45:
39:
37:
30:
21:
20:
1300:
1295:
1262:
1258:
1237:. Retrieved
1233:
1224:
1213:. Retrieved
1208:
1204:
1194:
1186:
1182:
1171:. Retrieved
1167:the original
1162:
1158:
1148:
1140:
1135:
1124:. Retrieved
1111:
1100:. Retrieved
1096:the original
1086:
1075:. Retrieved
1071:
1062:
1051:. Retrieved
1047:
1038:
1027:. Retrieved
1023:
1014:
990:
983:
972:. Retrieved
952:
948:
938:
927:. Retrieved
917:
906:. Retrieved
902:
893:
873:
866:
825:
821:
815:
807:
802:
783:
777:
739:. New York.
736:
709:. Retrieved
705:
678:. Retrieved
666:
662:
652:
641:. Retrieved
637:the original
627:
616:. Retrieved
592:. Retrieved
568:. Retrieved
561:the original
548:
519:
512:
507:
495:
486:
473:
433:
429:
417:
408:
393:
391:
375:
373:
353:
347:
345:
334:
332:
329:Legal issues
322:
308:
306:
295:
285:
279:
273:
271:
254:
249:
244:
239:
233:
222:
220:
212:
203:
195:
185:
179:
177:
156:
154:
137:
99:
90:
81:
66:
60:January 2011
57:
33:
352:(1996) and
115:facing the
1343:Categories
1215:2007-10-11
1173:2007-10-10
1126:2007-10-10
1102:2007-11-25
1077:2022-12-08
1053:2022-12-08
1029:2022-12-08
974:2007-10-09
929:2007-10-03
908:2022-12-08
755:1232175804
680:2008-02-17
643:2008-02-16
618:2007-10-05
594:2007-10-03
570:2007-10-05
250:rationally
240:rationally
101:Competency
89:system, a
1287:213793930
1279:2473-2850
842:1573-661X
763:cite book
711:11 August
540:Footnotes
496:In 1989,
424:bona fide
333:Although
95:defendant
48:talk page
1325:Archived
1211:(1): 112
850:12916229
675:18083992
528:See also
288:(2002).
257:forensic
121:executed
113:prisoner
42:You may
969:1349457
858:8164964
319:counsel
166:to the
151:History
82:In the
1285:
1277:
1002:
967:
881:
856:
848:
840:
790:
753:
743:
673:
476:MMPI-2
470:MMPI-2
264:. The
1283:S2CID
1239:7 May
1120:(PDF)
854:S2CID
564:(PDF)
557:(PDF)
302:trial
298:pleas
192:Forms
129:plead
109:trial
50:, or
1275:ISSN
1241:2017
1000:ISBN
965:PMID
879:ISBN
846:PMID
838:ISSN
788:ISBN
769:link
751:OCLC
741:ISBN
713:2017
671:PMID
396:the
307:In
138:The
1267:doi
996:184
957:doi
953:149
830:doi
500:of
374:In
1345::
1281:.
1273:.
1263:20
1261:.
1249:^
1232:.
1209:33
1207:.
1203:.
1163:34
1161:.
1157:.
1070:.
1046:.
1022:.
998:.
963:.
951:.
947:.
901:.
852:.
844:.
836:.
826:27
824:.
765:}}
761:{{
749:.
721:^
704:.
689:^
667:35
665:.
661:.
603:^
579:^
304:.
135:.
1289:.
1269::
1243:.
1218:.
1176:.
1129:.
1105:.
1080:.
1056:.
1032:.
1008:.
977:.
959::
932:.
911:.
887:.
860:.
832::
796:.
771:)
757:.
715:.
683:.
646:.
621:.
597:.
573:.
73:)
67:(
62:)
58:(
40:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.