Juveniles' competency to stand trial: Wading through the rhetoric and the evidence

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

Volumn 99, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 135-214

  Sanborn Jr , Joseph B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951046703     PISSN: 00914169     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (487)

1. 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960).
2. 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960).
3. Annotation, Competency to Stand Trial of Criminal Defendant Diagnosed as "Schizophrenic"-Modern State Cases, 33 A.L.R. 4th 1062 (1984)
4. Deborah B. Dove, Annotation, Competency to Stand Trial of Criminal Defendant Diagnosed as "Mentally Retarded"-Modern Cases, 23 A.L.R. 4th 493 (1983).
5. Dennis Koson & Ames Robey, Amnesia and Competency to Stand Trial, 130 AM. J. PSYCHIATRY 588 (1973)
6. Jonathan M. Purver, Annotation, Amnesia as Affecting Capacity to Commit Crime or Stand Trial, 46 A.L.R. 3d 544 (1972).
7. Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (1996)
8. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975).
9. The one exception to this is that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held several years ago that due to the rehabilitative nature of juvenile court proceedings, competency is not required of juvenile defendants. See G.J.I. v. State, 778 P.2d 485, 487 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989).
10. 387 U.S. 1 (1967). In re Gault granted the right to notice of charges, counsel, the protection against self-incrimination, and the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. Id.
11. See, e.g., State v. J.S., No. 0312013339, 2005 Del. Fam. Ct. LEXIS 75, at11 n.2 (Fam. Ct. Aug. 2, 2005), aff'd sub nom., Smith v. State, 918 A.2d 1144 (Del. 2007); In re K.G., 808 N.E.2d 631, 635 (Ind. 2004); State ex rel. Causey, 363 So. 2d 472, 474 (La. 1978); In re Welfare of S.W.T., 277 N.W.2d 507, 512 (Minn. 1979); In re Jeffrey C., 366 N.Y.S.2d 826, 829-30 (Fam. Ct. 1975); In re B.M.S., 847 N.E.2d 506, 509-10 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006); In re Smith, No. 5-01-34, 2002 WL 255126, at 2 n.5 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2002); In re Lloyd, No. 96-CA-86, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 1004, at4-5 (Ct. App. Jan. 27, 1997); In re McWhorter, No. CA94-02-047, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 5421, at4 (Ct. App. Dec. 5, 1994); In re Johnson, No. 7998, 1983 Ohio App. LEXIS 14017, at12 (Ct. App. Oct. 25, 1983); In re D.G., 698 N.E.2d 533, 534-35 (Ohio Ct. C oï m. Pl. Juv. Div. 1998); see also In re B.M.R., No. 2005-CA-1, 2005 WL 2978951, at2 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2005); In re Wood, No. 04CA0005-M, 2004 WL 2808913, at 2 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2004); In re Adams, No. 01- CA-237, 2003 WL 21783682, at5 (Ohio Ct. App. July 29, 2003); In re Bailey, 782 N.E.2d 1177, 1179 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002); In re Grimes, 769 N.E.2d 420, 422-23 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002); In re Anderson, No. 2001AP030021, 2002 WL 253855, at3 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2002); In re Williams, 687 N.E.2d 507, 510-11 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997); State v. E.C., 922 P.2d 152, 155-56 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996).
12. See, e.g., In re W.A.F., 573 A.2d 1264, 1266-67 & n.6 (D.C. 1990); In re S.H., 469 S.E.2d 810, 811 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996); In re T.D.W., 441 N.E.2d 155, 156-57 (Ill. App. Ct. 1982), overruled by People v. Gentry, 815 N.E.2d 27, 32 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004); In re Carey, 615 N.W.2d 742, 745-46 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000); In re Welfare of D.D.N., 582 N.W.2d 278, 281-82 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998).
13. See, e.g., State ex rel. Dandoy v. Superior Court, 619 P.2d 12, 15 (Ariz. 1980); Golden v. State, 21 S.W.3d 801, 803 (Ark. 2000); In re S.H., 469 S.E.2d at 811.
14. See James H. v. Superior Court, 143 Cal. Rptr. 398, 400 (Ct. App. 1978); In re Carey, 615 N.W.2d at 746; In re Two Minor Children, 592 P.2d 166, 169 (Nev. 1979).
15. See In re S.H., 469 S.E.2d at 811.
16. See In re W.A.F., 573 A.2d at 1267; ex rel. Causey, 363 So. 2d at 476.
17. See In re Carey, 615 N.W.2d at 745.
18. See In re W.A.F., 573 A.2d at 1267; ex rel. Causey, 363 So. 2d at 476
19. Richard Barnum & Thomas Grisso, Competence to Stand Trial in Juvenile Court in Massachusetts: Issues in Therapeutic Jurisprudence, 20 NEW ENG. J. ON CRIM. & CIV. CONFINEMENT 321, 327 (1994) ("If a person is not mentally present and able to defend oneself, then it is not fair to proceed against him or her.").
20. See In re J.M., 769 A.2d 656 (Vt. 2001).
21. In re W.A.F., 573 A.2d at 1267.
22. See infra tbl.1. Alaska's DelinquencyïRule 17(c) says notice of intention to offer evidence of mental disease or defect in juvenile court is governed by the relevant criminal court statute. ALASKA DELINQ. R. 17(C). It does not appear that this rule includes any provision for competency to stand trial per se.
23. For states using Dusky or their criminal court competency provision, see ARK. CODE ANN. § 9-27-502(a)(1) (2008); ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 15, § 3318 (2003); N.C. GEN. STAT. § 7B-2401 (2007); S.C. CODE ANN. § 44-23-410(A) (Supp. 2008); W. VA. CODE ANN. § 27- 6A-9 (LexisNexis 2008); State v. J.S., No. 0312013339, 2005 Del. Fam. Ct. LEXIS 75, at10-15 (Fam. Ct. Aug. 2, 2005), aff'd sub nom. Smith v. State, 918 A.2d 1144 (Del. 2007); In re T.D.W., 441 N.E.2d 155, 156-57 (Ill. App. Ct. 1982), overruled by People v. Gentry, 815 N.E.2d 27, 32 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004); In re K.G., 808 N.E.2d 631, 637-38 (Ind. 2004); In re A.B., No. 5-791/05-0868, 2006 Iowa App. LEXIS 189, at7-9 (Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2006); In re Carey, 615 N.W.2d at 746-47; In re Two Minor Children, 592 P.2d 166, 169 (Nev. 1979); In re Johnson, No. 7998, 1983 Ohio App. LEXIS 14017, at12-14 (Ct. App. Oct. 25, 1983); State v. E.C., 922 P.2d 152, 155-56 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996).
24. For jurisdictions creating a juvenile court rule or statute, see ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 8-291.02 (2007); CAL. FAM. & JUV. R. 5.645; COLO. REV. STAT. § 19-2-1301 (2008); CONN. SUPER. CT. R. 31A-14; D.C. CODE ANN. § 16-2315 (LexisNexis 2005 & Supp. 2008); FLA. STAT. ANN. § 985.19 (West Supp. 2008); GA. CODE ANN. § 15-11-152 (West 2007); KAN. STAT. ANN. § 38-2348 (Supp. 2007); LA. CHILD. CODE ANN. art. 832 (2004 & Supp. 2009); MD. CODE ANN., CTS. & JUD. PROC. § 3-8A-17.1 (LexisNexis 2006); MINN. R. JUV. DELINQ. PROC. 20.01; N.M. STAT. § 32A-2-17 (2008); N.Y. JUD. CT. ACTS LAW § 322.1 (McKinney 2008); TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 55.31 (Vernon 2008); VT. R. FAM. PROC. 1(I); VA. CODE ANN. § 16.1-356 (2003 & Supp. 2008); WIS. STAT. ANN. § 938.295 (West 2000 & Supp. 2008); WYO. STAT. ANN. § 14-6-219 (2007).
25. ARK. CODE ANN. § 9-27-502(b)(7)(C)(ix)(b)(1).
26. See In re A.B., 2006 Iowa App. LEXIS 189, at10-11.
27. In re Carey, 615 N.W.2d at 748.
28. See, e.g., In re Bailey, 782 N.E.2d 1177, 1179 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002); In re York, 756 N.E.2d 191, 200 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001).
29. VA. CODE ANN. § 16.1-356(F). In addition, Arizona law states that age alone does not render a person incompetent. See ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 8-291(2).
30. FLA. STAT. ANN. 985.19(1)(f) (West Supp. 2008); MD. CODE ANN., CTS. & JUD. PROC. 3-8A-17.3(a)(3)(ii) (LexisNexis 2006).
31. See LA. CHILD. CODE ANN. art. 837(D) (2004 & Supp. 2009). Similarly, New Mexico statutes mention that incompetency can stem from mental illness or developmental disability, but the statute does not articulate any special capabilities required of juvenile defendants. See N.M. STAT. 32A-2-21(A) (2008).
32. R. FAM. P. 1(i). The inspiration for the rule was In re J.M., 769 A.2d 656 (Vt. 2001).
33. Juvenile court law that evidences a strong concern for identifying the mental illness, disease, or defect cause of incompetency and the specific treatment plan needed for restoration of the defendant includes ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 8-291.07 (2007); CAL. FAM. & JUV. R. 5.645(a); D.C. CODE ANN. § 16-2315(b)(3)(B) (LexisNexis 2005 & Supp. 2008); GA. CODE ANN. § 15-11-152 (West 2007); KAN. STAT. ANN. § 38-2348(a) (Supp. 2007); LA. CHILD. CODE ANN. art. 835(c) (Supp. 2009); MINN. R. JUV. DELINQ. P. 20.01(1)(B).(3) (D); N.M. STAT. § 32A-2-21(A) (2008); N.Y. JUD. CT. ACTS LAW § 322.2(5) (McKinney 2008); TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 55.31(b) (Vernon 2008); WYO. STAT. ANN. § 14-6-219(c) (2007). Interestingly, the Arizona Court of Appeals recently held that mental disease, defect, or disability is not required for a finding of incompetency in juvenile court. See In re Hyrum H., 131 P.3d 1058 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
34. See infra Part VI.
35. In re L.D.M., No. 05-95-01264-CV, 1997 Tex. App. LEXIS 2127 (Ct. App. Apr. 23, 1997).
36. In re J.K.N., 115 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003).
37. In re A.D.V., No. 03-99-00020-CV, 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 9505 (Ct. App. Dec. 23, 1999).
38. In re Welfare of D.D.N., 582 N.W.2d 278, 281 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998).
39. Id. at 282.
40. In re J.M., 769 A.2d 656, 660 (Vt. 2001).
41. Id. at 660-61.
42. Id. at 661.
43. In re Jacob M.W., 690 N.W.2d 886, 2004 WL 2452567, at3 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004) (unpublished table decision).
44. Id. at7
45. Id. at8
46. Id. at10
47. In re Anderson, No. 2001AP030021, 2002 WL 253855 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2002).
48. In re Smith, No. 5-01-34, 2002 WL 255126 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2002); see also In re Stone, No. CA2002-09-035, 2003 Ohio App. LEXIS 2754 (Ct. App. June 16, 2003).
49. In re Gooch, No. 19339, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 6650 (Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2002).
50. In re J.J., No. 21386, 2004 Ohio App. LEXIS 1286, at13 (Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2004) (Carr, J., dissenting).
51. Id. at21.
52. State v. J.S., No. 0312013339, 2005 Del. Fam. Ct. LEXIS 75, at 3 (Fam. Ct. Aug. 2, 2005).
53. Id. at4
54. Id. at5
55. Id. at4-9
56. ARIZ. REV STAT. ANN. § 8-291.10(G), (H) (2007); FLA. STAT. ANN. § 985.19(5)(a) (West Supp. 2008); N.M. STAT. § 32A-2-21(G) (2008); WIS. STAT. ANN. § 938.30(5)(e)(1) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008); In re A.B., No. 5-791/05-0868, 2006 Iowa App. LEXIS 189 (Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2006).
57. COLO. REV. STAT. § 19-2-1303(3)(C) (2008); D.C. CODE ANN. § 16-2315(C)(2) (LexisNexis 2005 & Supp. 2008); GA. CODE ANN. § 15-11-155(h) (West 2007); MD. CODE ANN., CTS. & JUD. PROC. § 3-8A-17.9(1), (2) (LexisNexis 2006); MINN. R. JUV. DELINQ. P. 20.01(7); VA. CODE ANN. § 16.1-358 (LexisNexis 2008); WIS. STAT. ANN. § 938.30(e)(1).
58. Statutory law or court rules permit or command civil commitment in order to restore juvenile defendants to competency in many jurisdictions. See, e.g., ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 8-291.09 (2007); CAL. FAM. & JUV. R. 5.645(b), (c); COLO. REV. STAT. § 19-2-1302 (2008); D.C. CODE ANN. § 16-2315(c)(8) (LexisNexis 2005 & 2008); GA. CODE ANN. § 15-11-155; LA. CHILD. CODE ANN. art. 835(B)(3) (Supp. 2009); ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 15, § 3318(1)(A), (B) (2003); MD. CODE ANN., CTS. & JUD. PROC. § 3-8A-17.6 (LexisNexis 2006); N.M. STAT. § 32A-6-13(K) (2008); N.Y. JUD. CT. ACTS LAW § 322.2(4), (5) (McKinney 2008); TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 55.33(a)(1)(A) (Vernon 2008); VA. CODE ANN. § 16.1-357(A)-(B) (LexisNexis 2008); WIS. STAT. ANN. § 938.295(2)(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008); WYO. STAT. ANN. § 14-6-219(a) (2007). Florida law requires commitment if the youth is mentally ill or retarded and a felony is involved. See FLA. STAT. ANN. § 985.19(2) (Supp. 2008). Similarly, New York says residential treatment can be mandated if the youth has been charged with a designated felony. See N.Y. JUD. CT. ACTS LAW § 322.2(5)(c). Nebraska statutes allow a thirty-day placement for evaluation of the defendant's competency to stand trial, but do not specify limits to commitment for restoration purposes. See NEB. REV. STAT. § 43-258(2) (2004).
59. See, e.g., James H. v. Superior Court, 143 Cal. Rptr. 398 (Ct. App. 1978); In re K.G., 808 N.E.2d 631 (Ind. 2004); People ex rel. Thorpe v. Clark, 403 N.Y.S.2d 910 (App. Div. 1978); In re D.G., 698 N.E.2d 533 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. Juv. Div. 1998); Bettelyoun v. Talbott, 286 N.W.2d 526 (S.D. 1979).
60. See D.C. CODE ANN. § 16-2315(C)(7)(A) (LexisNexis 2005 & Supp. 2008); KAN. STAT. ANN. 38-2348(b)(2) (Supp. 2007); MINN. R. JUV. DELINQ. P. 20.01(3)(C); N.M. STAT. § 32A-6-13(K) (2008); TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 55.33(a)(1)(A)-(B); VA. CODE ANN. § 16.1- 357(A)-(B) (2008). The Virginia statute also allows extensions of the commitment for additional three-month periods. VA. CODE ANN. § 16.1-357(A)-(B). The Maine statute says the defendant can remain committed until no longer mentally ill. See ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 15, § 3318 (1)(A)-(B).
61. FLA. STAT. ANN. § 985.19(1)(C)(2).
62. In re Charles B., 978 P.2d 659, 661 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
63. Dismissing petitions is possible in several jurisdictions. See, e.g., ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 8-291.08(D) (2007); COLO. REV. STAT. § 19-2-1303(3)(c) (2008); D.C. CODE ANN. § 16-2315(c)(8) (LexisNexis 2005 & Supp. 2008); FLA. STAT. ANN. § 985.19(5)(c); GA. CODE ANN. § 15-11-155(d); LA. CHILD. CODE ANN. art. 837(C), (D) (2008 & Supp. 2009); MD. CODE ANN., CTS. & JUD. PROC. § 3-8A-17.7, 17.9 (); MINN. R. JUV. DELINQ. P. 20.01(5) (B), (7)(B); N.M. STAT. § 32A-2-21(G) (2008); N.Y. JUD. CT. ACTS LAW § 322.2(4) (McKinney 2008); VT. R. FAM. P. 1(i)(7); VA. CODE ANN. § 16.1-358 (LexisNexis 2008); WYO. STAT. ANN. § 14-6-219(d).
64. For states that allow incompetent delinquents to be adjudicated status offenders, see ARK. CODE ANN. § 9-27-502(b)(9)(C) (2008); LA. CHILD. CODE ANN. art. 837(B)(2) (Supp. 2009); WIS. STAT. ANN. 938.30(5)(d) (2000 & Supp. 2008). For states that require competency to stand trial for all juvenile defendants, see ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. 8-291.01A; CAL. FAM. & JUV. R. 5.645; GA. CODE ANN. § 15-11-152(a) (West 2007); TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. 55.31(a). Georgia does not allow an incompetent-to-stand trial defendant in juvenile court to be adjudicated a delinquent or status offender, but a youth so charged can be declared a dependent. See GA. CODE ANN. § 15-11-153(e) (West 2007).
65. Civil commitment is suggested or demanded for youths permanently regarded IST in several jurisdictions. See, e.g., ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 8-291.08(D); D.C. CODE ANN. § 16- 2315(C)(8); FLA. STAT. ANN. § 985.19(5)(C); GA. CODE ANN. § 15-11-155(d); KAN. STAT. ANN. § 38-2349(c) (Supp. 2007); LA. CHILD. CODE ANN. art. 837.3(C) (Supp. 2009); MD. CODE ANN., CTS. & JUD. P. § 3-8A-17.7(a); MINN. R. JUV. DELINQ. P. 20.01(5)(B)(1); N.M. STAT. 32A-2-21(G); TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 55.37-.42; VA. CODE ANN. § 16.1-358; WIS. STAT. ANN. § 938.30(5)(d) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008); WYO. STAT. ANN. § 14-6-219(c)-(d). Appellate case law has reached the same conclusion in California and Indiana. See James H. v. Superior Court, 143 Cal. Rptr. 398 (Ct. App. 1978); In re K.G., 808 N.E.2d 631 (Ind. 2004).
66. See, e.g., Mullinax v. State, 440 S.E.2d 720 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994); State v. Dillard, 718 P.2d 1272 (Idaho 1986); Lockridge v. State, 338 N.E.2d 275 (Ind. 1975); State v. Kempf, 282 N.W.2d 704 (Iowa 1979); State v. Lewis, 556 P.2d 888 (Kan. 1976); Hayden v. Commonwealth, 563 S.W.2d 720 (Ky. 1978): Humphrey v. Commonwealth, No. 2003-CA- 000906, 2004 Ky. App. LEXIS 147 (Ct. App. May 21, 2004).
67. State v. Mitchell, 577 N.W.2d 481 (Minn. 1998).
68. Brown v. State, 540 So. 2d 740, 742-43 (Ala. 1989).
69. Id. at 742.
70. M.D. v. State, 701 So. 2d 58, 61 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997).
71. Id. at 62.
72. State v. Thompson, 545 P.2d 925, 926 (Ariz. 1976).
73. Id. at 926-27.
74. People v. Hammond, 259 N.E.2d 44, 47 (Ill. 1970).
75. Id. at 48.
76. State v. McCracken, 615 N.W.2d 902, 911 (Neb. 2000).
77. Mooney v. State, 990 P.2d 875, 881-82 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999).
78. Commonwealth v. Hughes, 555 A.2d 1264, 1271 (Pa. 1989).
79. Id. at 1269.
80. State v. Sexton, No. E2000-01779-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 651, at28 (Crim. App. Aug. 2, 2002).
81. Elizabeth S. Scott et al., Public Attitudes About the Culpability and Punishment of Young Offenders, 24 BEHAV. SCI. & L. 815, 816 (2006).
82. David S. Tanenhaus, The Evolution of Transfer out of the Juvenile Court, in THE CHANGING BORDERS OF JUVENILE JUSTICE: TRANSFER OF ADOLESCENTS TO THE CRIMINAL COURT 13 (Jeffery Fagan & Franklin E. Zimring eds., 2000).
83. Joseph B. Sanborn, Jr., Policies Regarding the Prosecution of Juvenile Murderers: Which System and Who Should Decide?, 18 LAW & POL'Y 151 (1996).
84. Thomas Grisso & Laurence Steinberg, Between a Rock and a Soft Place: Developmental Research and the Child Advocacy Process, 34 J. CLINICAL CHILD & ADOLESCENT PSYCHOL. 619 (2005).
85. Legal experts and some from other disciplines have joined the ranks of the developmental psychologists in opposing excluding juveniles from juvenile court for the reasons cited by the psychologists. Nevertheless, for the sake of convenience, this Article lumps all of those who focus on the incompetency aspect in opposing exclusion together as developmental psychologists. Although maturity of judgment involves both competency to stand trial and juvenile offenders' culpability, this Article considers only the competency issue.
86. Elizabeth Cauffman & Laurence Steinberg, The Cognitive and Affective Influences on Adolescent Decision-Making, 68 TEMP. L. REV. 1763, 1773 (1995).
87. Id. at 1774-80.
88. Id. at 1778-83.
89. Id. at 1783-87.
90. Elizabeth S. Scott, N. Dickon Reppucci & Jennifer L. Woolard, Evaluating Adolescent Decision Making in Legal Contexts, 19 LAW & HUM. BEHAV. 221, 229 (1995).
91. Id. at 299-30.
92. Id. at 230-31.
93. Id. at 231-32.
94. Kim Taylor-Thompson, States of Mind/States of Development, 14 STAN. L. & POL'Y REV. 143, 153-56 (2003).
95. See Scott, Reppucci & Woolard, supra note 99.
96. Randy K. Otto & Alan M. Goldstein, Juveniles' Competence to Confess and Competence to Participate in the Juvenile Justice Process, in JUVENILE DELINQUENCY: PREVENTION, ASSESSMENT, AND INTERVENTION 179 (Kirk Heilbrun et al. eds., 2005).
97. Jennifer Lee Woolard, Developmental Aspects of Judgment and Competence in Legally Relevant Contexts 12 (May 1998) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Virginia) (on file with Proquest).
98. Thomas Grisso, Juveniles' Competence to Stand Trial: *ew Questions for an Era of Punitive Juvenile Justice Reform, in MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE: RETHINKING ASSESSMENT, COMPETENCY AND SENTENCING FOR A HARSHER ERA OF JUVENILE JUSTICE 23, 32 (Patricia Puritz et al. eds., 1997); Taylor-Thompson, supra note 103, at 144.
99. See Grisso, supra note 107, at 32.
100. Laurence Steinberg & Robert G. Schwartz, Developmental Psychology Goes to Court, in YOUTH ON TRIAL: A DEVELOPMENTAL PERSPECTIVE ON JUVENILE JUSTICE 9, 26 (Thomas Grisso & Robert G. Schwartz eds., 2000).
101. Grisso, supra note 107, at 32; Elizabeth S. Scott & Thomas Grisso, The Evolution of Adolescence: A Developmental Perspective on Juvenile Justice Reform, 88 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 137 (1997)
102. Laurence Steinberg, et al., Juveniles' Competence to Stand Trial as Adults, 17 SOC. POL'Y REP. 3 (2003).
103. See Steinberg et al., supra note 112, at 4.
104. Grisso, supra note 107, at 31.
105. Emily Buss, "You're My What?": The Problem of Children's Misperceptions of Their Lawyers' Roles, 64 FORDHAM L. REV. 1699 (1996)
106. Naomi E. Goldstein, et al., Advocating a Functional Approach to Determining Adjudicative Competency in Juveniles, 2 J. FORENSIC PSYCHOL. PRAC. 89, 93 (2002).
107. Goldstein et al., supra note 115, at 93.
108. Gary B. Melton, Children's Concepts of Their Rights, 9 J. CLINICAL CHILD PSYCHOL. 186 (1980).
109. THOMAS GRISSO, JUVENILES' WAIVER OF RIGHTS: LEGAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL COMPETENCE (1981)
110. Richard A. Lawrence, The Role of Legal Counsel in Juveniles' Understanding of Their Rights, 34 JUV. & FAM. CT. J., Winter 1983, at 49, 52 (1984).
111. Amye Warren-Leubecker, et al., What Do Children Know About the Legal System and When Do They Know It? First Steps Down a Less Traveled Path in Child Witness Research, in PERSPECTIVES ON CHILDREN'S TESTIMONY 158 (S.J. Ceci et al. eds., 1989).
112. Karen J. Saywitz, Children's Conceptions of the Legal System: "Court Is a Place to Play Basketball," in PERSPECTIVES ON CHILDREN'S TESTIMONY, supra note 120, at 131.
113. Id. at 145.
114. Bruce Ambuel & Julian Rappaport, Developmental Trends in Adolescents' Psychological and Legal Competence to Consent to Abortion, 16 LAW & HUM. BEHAV. 129 (1992)
115. Ellen Greenberg Garrison, Children's Competence to Participate in Divorce Custody Decisionmaking, 20 J. CLINICAL CHILD PSYCHOL. 78 (1991)
116. Catherine C. Lewis, A Comparison of Minors' and Adults' Pregnancy Decisions, 50 AM. J. ORTHOPSYCHIATRY 446 (1980)
117. David G. Scherer, The Capacities of Minors to Exercise Voluntariness in Medical Treatment Decisions, 15 LAW & HUM. BEHAV. 431 (1991)
118. Lois A. Weithorn & Susan B. Campbell, The Competency of Children and Adolescents to Make Informed Treatment Decisions, 53 CHILD DEVELOPMENT 1589 (1982).
119. Ruth Beyth-Marom, et al., Perceived Consequences of Risky Behaviors: Adults and Adolescents, 29 DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOL. 549 (1993)
120. Lita Furby & Ruth Beyth-Marom, Risk Taking in Adolescence: A Decision-Making Perspective, 12 DEVELOPMENTAL REV. 1 (1992)
121. Thomas Grisso & Linda Vierling, Minors Consent to Treatment: A Developmental Perspective, 9 PROF. PSYCHOL.: RES. & PRAC. 412 (1978)
122. Leon Mann, et al., Adolescent Decision-Making: The Development of Competence, 12 J. ADOLESCENCE 265 (1989)
123. Lois A. Weithorn, Involving Children in Decisions Affecting Their Own Welfare: Guidelines for Professionals, in CHILDREN'S COMPETENCE TO CONSENT 235 (Gary B. Melton et al. eds., 1983).
124. Thomas Grisso, What We Know About Youths' Capacities as Trial Defendants, in YOUTH ON TRIAL, supra note 111, at 139.
125. Id. at 146; Grisso, supra note 107, at 29.
126. See Scott & Grisso, supra note 112, at 169.
127. See Grisso, supra note 107, at 33.
128. See Scott & Grisso, supra note 112, at 167.
129. See id. at 156; Grisso, supra note 107, at 31.
130. See Grisso, supra note 107, at 32.
131. Jeffrey C. Savitsky & Deborah Karras, Competency to Stand Trial Among Adolescents, 19 ADOLESCENCE 349 (1984).
132. Id. at 353.
133. Id. at 355.
134. Id. at 355-57.
135. Vance L. Cowden & Geoffrey R. McKee, Competency to Stand Trial in Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings: Cognitive Maturity and the Attorney-Client Relationship, 33 J. FAM. L. 629, 648 (1995).
136. Id. at 652-54.
137. Id. at 654-55.
138. Id. at 652.
139. Id. at 657.
140. Geoffrey R. McKee, Competency to Stand Trial in Preadjudicatory Juveniles and Adults, 26 J. AM. ACAD. PSYCHIATRY & L. 89, 91 (1998).
141. Id. at 94-95.
142. Geoffrey R. McKee & Steven J. Shea, Competency to Stand Trial in Family Court:Characteristics of Competent and Incompetent Juveniles, 27 J. AM. ACAD. PSYCHIATRY & L. 65, 67, 69 (1999).
143. Id. at 69-70.
144. Id. at 71.
145. Id. at 69-70.
146. Deborah Kay Cooper, Juvenile Competency to Stand Trial: The Effects of Age and Presentation of Factual Information in the Attainment of Competency in Juveniles (1995) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Georgia) (on file with author).
147. Id. at 25, 44.
148. Id. at 42-44.
149. Id. at 41.
150. Id. at 99.
151. Id. at 26.
152. Id. at 101.
153. See id. at 116.
154. Id. at 42-44.
155. Id. at 100.
156. Id. at 47.
157. Id. at 48-49.
158. Id. at 49.
159. Id. at 50.
160. Christine Schnyder, The Competence of Juveniles to Assist in Their Own Defense: An Investigation of Trust and Understanding in the Attorney Relationship (1998) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Alabama) (on file with author).
161. Id. at 32. One participant self-identified as Native American, but "[h]is data were excluded from analyses involving Race as a factor." Id.
162. Id. at 50-57.
163. Id. at 36-38.
164. Id. at 42-43.
165. Id. at 43-44.
166. Id. at 50-53.
167. Id. at 54-57.
168. Id. at 59.
169. Id. at 89-90.
170. Id. at 21.
171. Id. at 88.
172. See id. at 50-59.
173. See id. at 59.
174. Id. at 60.
175. Id. at 61.
176. Id. at 63.
177. Id. at 55, 63.
178. Id. at 63, 65.
179. See id. at 65.
180. See id. at 75.
181. Meredith Susanne Krause, Methodological and Developmental Issues in the Assessment of Adjudicative Competence (May 1998) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Virginia) (on file with author)
182. Woolard, supra note 106.
183. Krause, supra note 185, at 16-18.
184. MacArthur Research Network on Adolescent Dev. & Juvenile Justice (MacArthur Research Network), Method, Measures, and Procedures for the Juvenile Adjudicative Competence Study 9, 16-19 (Aug. 2002) (unpublished working paper), http://www.adjj.org/ downloads/9213method_archival_and_tables.pdf.
185. Woolard, supra note 106, at app. A, pp 91-114.
186. See Krause, supra note 185, at 15.
187. Id. at 72.
188. Id. at 45.
189. Id. at 62, 65, 67.
190. See id. at 75.
191. Id. at 34.
192. Id. at 41. The Appreciation scale was not given to the comparison group.
193. Id. at 78.
194. See Woolard, supra note 106, at 55.
195. Id. at 19.
196. Id. at 19-20.
197. Id. at 20.
198. Id. at 22-24.
199. Id. at 28-29.
200. Id. at 29.
201. Id. at 34.
202. Id. at 57.
203. See id. at 42-45.
204. Id. at 58, 66.
205. Jenine C. Boyd, The Competence-Related Abilities of Juveniles Prosecuted in Criminal Court 36, 44 (1999) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of South Florida) (on file with author).
206. Randy K. Otto, et al., Psychometric Properties of the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication, 10 PSYCHOL. ASSESSMENT 435 (1998).
207. See Boyd, supra note 213, at 40.
208. Id. at 35.
209. Id. at 55 tbl.6.
210. See id. at 55 tbl. 6, 57 tbl.8, 69.
211. Id. at 57 tbl.8.
212. Id. at 70-71.
213. See id. at 60, 61 & tbl.11.
214. Id. at 70.
215. Darla Michele Rutherford Burnett, Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial in a Juvenile Population 57 (Dec. 1999) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi) (on file with author).
216. Id. at 62 tbl.3, 63.
217. Id. at 71-74.
218. See id. at 62.
219. See id. at 75. The Appreciation scale was not given to the comparison group.
220. See id. at 76.
221. Id. at 72.
222. See Otto et al., supra note 214.
223. Burnett, supra note 194, at 75 tbl.4.
224. Id. at 74-75.
225. Id. at 76-77.
226. Id. at 78 tbl.5.
227. Id. at 78-80 Tables 5, 6, 7.
228. See id. at 77.
229. Frances J. Lexcen, Factors Associated with Juvenile Competence to Stand Trial: Neuropsychological, Psychopathological and Psychosocial Variables (May 2000) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Virginia) (on file with author).
230. Id. at 25.
231. See id. at 43-45.
232. Id. at 45.
233. Id. at 35.
234. See id. at 35, 45.
235. See id. at 47.
236. See supra notes 202-04 and accompanying text.
237. Lexcen, supra note 237, at 37.
238. See id. at 37, 47.
239. Id. at 47.
240. Victoria K. Lyle, Emotional Maturity and Trial Competence in Urban Male Adolescents 15, 31 (May 2003) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Walden University) (on file with author).
241. Id. at 8, 31.
242. Id. at 10.
243. Id. at 8.
244. See id. at 8, 10, 29.
245. Id. at 31.
246. See id. at 43.
247. Id. at 44 tbl.2.
248. See id. at 43-44.
249. Id. at 45-46.
250. Melinda G. Schmidt, N. Dickon Reppucci & Jennifer L. Woolard, Effectiveness of Participation as a Defendant: The Attorney-Juvenile Client Relationship, 21 BEHAV. SCI. & L. 175, 181 (2003).
251. Id. at 177-81.
252. Id. at 184-85.
253. Id. at 181.
254. Id. at 191.
255. Allison D. Redlich, Melissa Silverman & Hans Steiner, Pre-Adjudicative and Adjudicative Competence in Juveniles and Young Adults, 21 BEHAV. SCI. & L. 393, 397 (2003).
256. Id. at 397.
257. Id. at 401.
258. Dana Royce Baerger, et al., Competency to Stand Trial in Preadjudicated and Petitioned Juvenile Defendants, 31 J. AM. ACAD. PSYCHIATRY & L. 314, 316 (2003).
259. Id. at 318.
260. Id. at 317.
261. Thomas Grisso, et al., Juveniles' Competence to Stand Trial: A Comparison of Adolescents' and Adults' Capacities as Trial Defendants, 27 LAW & HUM. BEHAV. 333, 337(2003).
262. Id. at 336.
263. Id. at 339. At the beginning of data collection, only the Krause and Woolard dissertations were published. By the end of data collection, however, a few more dissertations involving the MacCAT-CA and adolescents had materialized-Boyd's, Burnett's, and Lexcen's. Woolard and Lexcen were on the MacArthur team. If these comments are a reference to the fact that none of the dissertations were published, then the second statement may be technically correct. The MacArthur Study reviewed none of the previous research in this area, and to suggest that there are no reports on MacCAT use with juveniles is misleading, if not disingenuous.
264. Id. at 338-39.
265. Id. at 337.
266. Id.
267. See MacArthur Research Network, supra note 187, at 11-12.
268. Grisso et al., supra note 276, at 350, 360. Approximately two-thirds of detained fifteen-year-olds and younger had an IQ score below 89.
269. See MacArthur Research Network, supra note 187.
270. See Grisso et al., supra note 276, at 351-52 fig.9.
271. Id. at 352-53.
272. Id. at 352 fig.9.
273. See id. at 353.
274. Id. at 353-54.
275. See id. at 354.
276. Id. at 346-47.
277. See id. at 348.
278. MacArthur Research Network, supra note 187, at 21.
279. See Grisso et al., supra note 276, at 344, 356.
280. Id. at 344, 347-48.
281. Id. at 344, 353-55.
282. MacArthur Research Network, supra note 187, at 21.
283. Grisso et al., supra note 276, at 357.
284. MACARTHUR RESEARCH NETWORK, THE MACARTHUR JUVENILE COMPETENCE STUDY: SUMMARY 2 (2002), available at http://www.adjj.org/downloads/58competence_study_summary.pdf.
285. Grisso et al., supra note 276, at 356.
286. Janet I. Warren, et al., Correlates of Adjudicative Competence Among Psychiatrically Impaired Juveniles, 31 J. AM. ACAD. PSYCHIATRY & L. 299, 301 (2003).
287. Id. at 302.
288. Id. at 303 tbl.1.
289. See id. at 303. The MAYSI is the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument.
290. See id. at 304 tbl.2.
291. Id. at 306.
292. Jodi L. Viljoen, Police Interrogation and Criminal Adjudication of Child and Adolescent Defendants: Legal Abilities, Decisions, and Standards 39-40, 71 tbl.1 (Apr. 2004) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Simon Fraser University) (on file with Simon Fraser University).
293. Jodi L. Viljoen, et al., Legal Decisions of Preadolescent and Adolescent Defendants: Predictors of Confessions, Pleas, Communication with Attorneys, and Appeals, 29 LAW & HUM. BEHAV. 253, 256 (2005). This article was one of two publications of Viljoen's dissertation.
294. Id. at 256-57.
295. Id. at 257.
296. See id. at 258; see also RONALD ROESCH ET AL., FIT-R: FITNESS INTERVIEW TEST-REVISED (2006).
297. Viljoen et al., supra note 314, at 256, 259.
298. Jodi L. Viljoen & Ronald Roesch, Competence to Waive Interrogation Rights and Adjudicative Competence in Adolescent Defendants: Cognitive Development, Attorney Contact, and Psychological Symptoms, 29 LAW & HUM. BEHAV. 723, 731 (2005). This article was the second publication of Viljoen's dissertation.
299. Id. at 732.
300. Id. Also scoring lower on the FIT-R were those who "showed evidence of attention deficits or hyperactivity, came from below average socioeconomic classes, and had spent limited time with their attorneys." See Viljoen, supra note 313, at 165.
301. Viljoen & Roesch, supra note 319, at 732.
302. See Viljoen et al., supra note 314, at 55.
303. See Viljoen & Roesch, supra note 319, at 732.
304. See id. at 738.
305. See Viljoen, supra note 313, at 60.
306. See Viljoen et al., supra note 314, at 264.
307. See id. at 265-66.
308. See Viljoen et al., supra note 314, at 264.
309. See id. at 266.
310. See id. at 267.
311. See id. at 265-66.
312. Id. at 267 tbl.5.
313. Id. at 267.
314. Id. at 268.
315. Id. at 269.
316. See id. at 268-69.
317. See id. at 269.
318. Id. at 270.
319. See Viljoen, supra note 313, at 95.
320. Id. at 96-97, 113.
321. Id. at 95-96.
322. Id. at 96-97, 113.
323. These criteria were borrowed from Richard J. Bonnie & Thomas Grisso, Adjudicative Competence and Youthful Offenders, in YOUTH ON TRIAL, supra note 111, at 73.
324. Viljoen, supra note 313, at 96-97, 113.
325. Id. at 106.
326. See Viljoen et al., supra note 314, at 266-68, 271.
327. Norman G. Poythress, et al., The Competence-Related Abilities of Adolescent Defendants in Criminal Court, 30 LAW & HUM. BEHAV. 75, 76-79 (2006).
328. Id. at 85-86.
329. Id. at 80.
330. See id. at 85.
331. See id. at 86-87.
332. Id. at 87 tbl.3.
333. Id. at 88 tbl.4.
334. See id. at 87.
335. Id. at 88.
336. Susan LaVelle Ficke, Kathleen J. Hart & Paul A. Deardorff, The Performance of Incarcerated Juveniles on the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA), 34 J. AM. ACAD. PSYCHIATRY & L. 360, 363 (2006).
337. Id. at 363-64.
338. Id. at 364.
339. Id. at 365-66.
340. Id. at 366 tbl.2.
341. Id. at 366, 367 tbl.3.
342. See id. at 367.
343. See id. at 366, 370.
344. Id. at 368.
345. Id. at 372.
346. See id. at 367-69, 372.
347. Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 402 (1993).
348. Burnett, supra note 223, at 88.
349. Grisso, supra note 107, at 29.
350. 543 U.S. 551, 570-71 (2005).
351. Id. at 573-75.
352. Barry C. Feld, Competence, Culpability, and Punishment: Implications of Atkins for Executing and Sentencing Adolescents, 32 HOFSTRA L. REV. 463 (2003).
353. Daniel P. Mears, et al., Public Opinion and the Foundation of the Juvenile Court, 45 CRIMINOLOGY 223, 224 (2007).
354. 536 U.S. 304 (2002).
355. Grisso, supra note 125, at 143.
356. See Grisso et al., supra note 276, at 344.
357. See, e.g., Ambuel & Rappaport, supra note 123
358. Ronald W. Belter & Thomas Grisso, Children's Recognition of Rights Violations in Counseling, 15 PROF. PSYCHOL: RES. & PRAC. 899 (1984)
359. Grisso & Vierling, supra note 124; Lewis, supra note 123; Weithorn & Campbell, supra note 123.
360. Elizabeth Cauffman, Jennifer Woolard & N. Dickon Reppucci, Justice for Juveniles: *ew Perspectives on Adolescents' Competence and Culpability, 18 QUINNIPIAC L. REV. 403, 407 (1999).
361. See id. at 407-10.
362. See, e.g., Cauffman & Steinberg, supra note 95; Scott, Reppucci & Woolard, supra note 99; Taylor-Thompson, supra note 103.
363. Tamera Wong, Comment, Adolescent Minds, Adult Crimes: Assessing a Juvenile's Mental Health and Capacity to Stand Trial, 6 U.C. DAVIS J. JUV. L. & POL'Y 163, 165 (2002).
364. Id. at 175-76 (citations omitted).
365. See Grisso, supra note 125.
366. THOMAS GRISSO, EVALUATING COMPETENCIES: FORENSIC ASSESSMENTS AND INSTRUMENTS (1988)
367. GARY B. MELTON, ET AL., PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS FOR THE COURTS: A HANDBOOK FOR MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS AND LAWYERS (2d ed. 1997)
368. RICHARD E. REDDING, ADJUDICATIVE COMPETENCE IN JUVENILES: LEGAL AND CLINICAL ISSUES (2000) (on file with author).
369. Lois B. Oberlander, Naomi E. Goldstein & Caleb N. Ho, Preadolescent Adjudicative Competence: Methodological Considerations and Recommendations for Practice Standards, 19 BEHAV. SCI. & L. 545, 558 (2001).
370. See GRISSO, supra note 398; MELTON ET AL., supra note 398.
371. Jennifer Woolard, Understanding Violence from a Developmental Perspective, (Univ. of Fla. Ctr. for Studies in Criminology & Law, Position Paper, 2001) (on file with author).
372. Bonnie and Grisso express concern that juveniles might not appreciate the impact of their appearance and demeanor on fact-finders, and that this might place them at a disadvantage vis-à-vis adults. See Bonnie & Grisso, supra note 351, at 89. Meanwhile, Zapf and Roesch explain that a defendant's being angry, anxious, or agitated could interfere with an ability to talk to a lawyer or to testify in court.
373. Patricia A. Zapf & Ronald Roesch, An Investigation of the Construct of Competence: A Comparison of the FIT, the MacCAT-CA, and the MacCAT-T, 29 LAW. & HUM. BEHAV. 229, 247 (2005).
374. Grisso, supra note 125, at 141 (emphasis added).
375. Jennifer L. Woolard & N. Dickon Reppucci, Researching Juveniles' Capacities as Defendants, in YOUTH ON TRIAL, supra note 111, at 173, 177 (emphasis added).
376. Schmidt, Reppucci & Woolard, supra note 260, at 176-77 (citations omitted).
377. Grisso et al., supra note 276, at 335. Years ago, Professor Bonnie noted that a defendant's motives for various actions are irrelevant and that a defendant's reasons for waiving a right have relevance only if they involve coercive threats.
378. Richard J. Bonnie, The Competence of Criminal Defendants: Beyond Dusky and Drope, 47 U. MIAMI L. REV. 539, 573 (1993).
379. His theory is important to the DPs because he expanded the focus of what is required to be competent to stand trial by creating the concept of adjudicative competence.
380. Laurence Steinberg & Elizabeth Cauffman, Adolescents as Adults in Court: A Developmental Perspective on the Transfer of Juveniles to Criminal Court, 15 SOC. POL'Y REP., Issue 4, at 3, 4-5 (2001)
381. Steinberg & Schwartz, supra note 111, at 24.
382. Laurence Steinberg & Elizabeth Cauffman, Maturity of Judgment in Adolescence: Psychosocial Factors in Adolescent Decision Making, 20 LAW & HUM. BEHAV. 249, 252 (1996).
383. Eileen P. Ryan & Daniel C. Murrie, Competence to Stand Trial and Young Children: Is the Presumption of Competence Valid?, 5 J. FORENSIC PSYCHOL. PRAC. 89 (2005).
384. Bruce A. Arrigo & Mark C. Bardwell, Law, Psychology, and Competency to Stand Trial: Problems with and Implications for High-Profile Cases, 11 CRIM. JUST. POL'Y REV. 16 (2000)
385. Melissa L. Cox & Patricia A. Zapf, An Investigation of Discrepancies Between Mental Health Professionals and the Courts in Decisions About Competency, 28 LAW & PSYCHOL. REV. 108 (2004)
386. Keith R. Cruise & Richard Rogers, An Analysis of Competency to Stand Trial: An Integration of Case Law and Clinical Knowledge, 16 BEHAV. SCI. & L. 35 (1998)
387. James H. Reich & Linda Tookey, Disagreements Between Court and Psychiatrist on Competency to Stand Trial, 47 J. CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY 29 (1986).
388. Grant H. Morris, Ansar M. Haroun & David Naimark, Assessing Competency Competently: Toward a Rational Standard for Competency-To-Stand-Trial Assessments, 32 J. AM. ACAD. PSYCHIATRY & L. 231, 243 (2004).
389. See, e.g., Lyle, supra note 249, at 15; Schmidt, Reppucci & Woolard, supra note 260, at 179. For example, Bonnie and Grisso claim: "This tendency could lead them to make choices in the adjudicative process . . . that do not reflect the values that they would bring to bear on the judgment a few short years later when they become adults." Bonnie & Grisso, supra note 351, at 88. Similarly, Grisso wonders, "[W]hat if the individual's choices reflected preferences based on a temporary set of values sure to change in a short time?" Grisso, supra note 125, at 160.
390. See Grisso, supra note 107, at 32.
391. Otto & Goldstein, supra note 105, at 182-83.
392. Elizabeth S. Scott & Thomas Grisso, Developmental Incompetence, Due Process, and Juvenile Justice Policy, 83 N.C. L. REV. 793, 817 (2005).
393. Bruce A. Arrigo, Justice and the Deconstruction of Psychological Jurisprudence: The Case of Competence to Stand Trial, 7 THEORETICAL CRIMINOLOGY 55, 58 (2003).
394. THOMAS GRISSO, FORENSIC EVALUATION OF JUVENILES 84-85 (1998).
395. Schmidt, Reppucci & Woolard, supra note 260, at 181.
396. See id. at 177; Schnyder, supra note 164, at 36.
397. Michele Peterson-Baladi & Rona Abramovitch, Children's Knowledge of the Legal System: Are They Competent to Instruct Legal Counsel?, 34 CAN. J. CRIMINOLOGY 139 (1992)
398. Schmidt, Reppucci & Woolard, supra note 260, at 177; see also, e.g., REDDING, supra note 398, at 6 ("Young adolescents often incorrectly believe that their attorney will reveal confidential information to the judge or police.").
399. Thomas Grisso, Michael O. Miller & Bruce Sales, Competency to Stand Trial in Juvenile Court, 10 INT'L J.L. & PSYCHIATRY 1, 12 (1987)
400. Schmidt, Reppucci & Woolard, supra note 260, at 177; Lyle, supra note 249, at 49-52.
401. Redlich, Silverman & Steiner, supra note 267, at 405; Schmidt, Reppucci & Woolard, supra note 260, at 178.
402. See Schmidt, Reppucci & Woolard, supra note 260, at 180; Schnyder, supra note 164, at 75.
403. Grisso, supra note 107, at 31.
404. 461 U.S. 1 (1983).
405. Joseph B. Sanborn, Jr., How Parents Can Affect the Processing of Delinquents in Juvenile Court, 7 CRIM. JUST. POL'Y REV. 1, 11 (1995).
406. See Joseph B. Sanborn, Jr., Remnants of Parens Patriae in the Adjudicatory Hearing: Is a Fair Trial Possible in Juvenile Court?, 40 CRIME & DELINQUENCY 599, 605-06 tbl.3 (1994).
407. See, e.g., GRISSO, supra note 398.
408. Emily Buss, The Role of Lawyers in Promoting Juveniles' Competence as Defendants, in YOUTH ON TRIAL, supra note 111, at 243, 252 (2000).
409. See Ficke, Hart & Deardorff, supra note 365; Woolard & Reppucci, supra note 404.
410. See, e.g., MELTON ET AL., supra note 398
411. Robert A. Nicholson, Stephen R. Briggs & Helen C. Robertson, Instruments for Assessing Competency to Stand Trial: How Do They Work?, 19 PROF. PSYCHOL. RES. & PRACT. 383 (1988)
412. Richard Rogers, Karen L. Ustad & Kenneth Sewell, Dimensions of Incompetency: A Factor Analytic Study of the Georgia Court Competency Test, 14 BEHAV. SCI. & L. 323 (1996)
413. Karen L. Ustad, et al., Restoration of Competency to Stand Trial: Assessment with the Georgia Court Competency Test and the Competency Screening Test, 20 LAW & HUM. BEHAV. 131 (1996).
414. Jennifer L. Skeem, et al., Logic and Reliability of Evaluations of Competence to Stand Trial, 22 LAW & HUM. BEHAV. 519 (1998).
415. Problems attending the GCCT-Juvenile Version were thoroughly examined during the discussion of Cooper's dissertation and will not be repeated here. See Cooper, supra note 147; supra notes 150-58 and accompanying text.
416. See GRISSO, supra note 398; Burnett, supra note 223.
417. Steven K. Hoge, et al., The MacArthur Adjudicative Competence Study: Development and Validation of a Research Instrument, 21 LAW & HUM. BEHAV. 141, 158 (1997).
418. LAB. OF CMTY. PSYCHIATRY, HARVARD MED. SCH., COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL AND MENTAL ILLNESS 74 (1972) (Nat'l Inst. of Mental Health, Crime and Delinquency Issues: A Monograph Series (1972)).
419. Id. at 76.
420. Id. at 77-78.
421. See Roesch et al., supra note 317.
422. See Viljoen et al., supra note 314, at 264-65.
423. See Otto et al., supra note 214.
424. Joseph B. Sanborn, Jr., Plea Negotiation in Juvenile Court 108-09 (Dec. 14, 1984) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Albany) (on file with author).
425. Redlich, Silverman & Steiner, supra note 267, at 394.
426. Elizabeth S. Scott, Criminal Responsibility in Adolescence: Lessons from Developmental Psychology, in YOUTH ON TRIAL, supra note 111, at 291, 300
427. Scott & Grisso, supra note 112, at 154-56; Taylor-Thompson, supra note 103, at 156.
428. See, e.g., Ficke, Hart & Deardorff, supra note 365; Grisso et al., supra note 276; Boyd, supra note 213; Burnett, supra note 223; Krause, supra note 185; Viljoen, supra note 313; Woolard, supra note 106.
429. See, e.g., Cooper, supra note 147; Schnyder, supra note 164.
430. See, e.g., Warren et al., supra note 305; Lexcen, supra note 237.
431. See, e.g., Cowden & McKee, supra note 136; McKee & Shea, supra note 143; McKee, supra note 141.
432. JOSEPH B. SANBORN, JR. & ANTHONY W. SALERNO, THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM: LAW AND PROCESS (2005)
433. HOWARD N. SNYDER & MELISSA SICKMUND, NAT'L CTR. FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE, JUVENILE OFFENDERS AND VICTIMS: 2006 National Report, at 170. Even for sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds the rate of detention is less than 25%. See id.
434. Karen M. Abram, et al., Comorbid Psychiatric Disorders in Youth in Juvenile Detention, 60 ARCHIVES GEN. PSYCHIATRY 1097, 1098 (2003)
435. Linda A. Teplin, et al., Psychiatric Disorders in Youth in Detention, 59 ARCHIVES GEN. PSYCHIATRY 1133, 1134-37 (2002).
436. MacArthur Research Network, supra note 187, at 12.
437. See Ficke, Hart & Deardorff, supra note 365, at 368; Burnett, supra note 223, at 58-60.
438. Viljoen, supra note 313, at 56.
439. See Otto et al., supra note 214, at 440.
440. See Boyd, supra note 213, at 61.
441. See Grisso et al., supra note 276, at 343.
442. See Steinberg et al., supra note 112, at 11.
443. Grisso et al., supra note 276, at 361 (emphasis added); Steinberg et al., supra note 112, at 13. Bonnie, who created the two-dimensional formula for competency to stand trial, said the lack of competency in the decisional competence category-the only category in which juveniles display weaknesses-is not a bar to conducting trial. See Bonnie, supra note 406, at 555.
444. FLA. DEP'T OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, 2005-2006 DELINQUENCY PROFILE (2007), available at http://www.djj.state.fl.us/Research/Delinquency_Profile/0506_Profile.htm l.
445. See, e.g., Ambuel & Rappaport, supra note 123; Belter & Grisso, supra note 391
446. Stephen Bates Billick, Developmental Competency, 14 BULL. AM. ACAD. PSYCHIATRY L. 301 (1986)
447. Nancy Kaser-Boyd, et al., Children's Understanding of Risks and Benefits of Psychotherapy, 15 J. CLINICAL CHILD PSYCHOL. 165 (1986)
448. Nancy Kaser-Boyd, Howard S. Adelman & Linda Taylor, Minors' Ability to Identify Risks and Benefits of Therapy, 16 PROF. PSYCHOL.: RES. & PRAC. 411 (1985)
449. Patricia A. King, Treatment and Minors: Issues *ot Involving Lifesaving Treatment, 23 J. FAM. L. 241 (1984)
450. Lewis, supra note 123; Gary B. Melton, Toward "Personhood" for Adolescents: Autonomy and Privacy as Values in Public Policy, 38 AM. PSYCHOLOGIST 99 (1983)
451. Richard E. Redding, Children's Competence to Provide Informed Consent for Mental Health Treatment, 50 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 695 (1993)
452. Weithorn & Campbell, supra note 123. Some research has made this finding at the age of fifteen. See, e.g., Grisso & Vierling, supra note 124; Mann et al., supra note 124.
453. See Ambuel & Rappaport, supra note 123.
454. Brief for American Psychological Ass'n as Amicus Curiae Supporting Appellees at 18, Hartigan v. Zbaraz, 484 U.S. 171 (1987) (No. 85-673). In the footnote accompanying this sentence, the authors continue: "Moreover, progressively increasing numbers of younger adolescents demonstrate such capacities as they proceed through the developmental transition typical of ages 11-14 [sic]." Id.
455. Redding, supra note 461, at 726.
456. Brief for American Psychological Ass'n as Amicus Curiae Supporting Appellees at 4, Thornburgh v. Am. Coll. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986) (No. 84- 495) (citations omitted).
457. Brief for American Psychological Ass'n et al. as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners/Cross-Respondents, Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990) (Nos. 88-805, 88-1125, 88-1309), available at 1989 WL 1127529, at18-20 (citations and footnotes omitted).
458. Redding, supra note 461, at 708 (citations omitted).
459. See Scott & Grisso, supra note 416, at 826-27.
460. See id. at 827.
461. Id. at 827-28.
462. Id. at 834.
463. Id. at 835-36 (emphasis added).
464. See supra Parts III-IV.
465. See Scott & Grisso, supra note 416, at 836.
466. Id. at 838 (footnote omitted).
467. See, e.g., Bonnie, supra note 406, at 543, 551; Scott & Grisso, supra note 416, at 800, 809.
468. 387 U.S. 1 (1967).
469. 397 U.S. 358 (1970).
470. 421 U.S. 519 (1975).
471. Bonnie & Grisso, supra note 351, at 94.
472. Scott & Grisso, supra note 416, at 836.
473. In 2006, there were 4,237,023 adults on probation. That figure was much higher than the combined numbers in jail (766,010), prison (1,492,973), and parole (798,202). See Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online, Adults on Probation, in Jail, or Prison, and on Parole, Table 6.1 (2006), http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t612006.pdf. In 2004, even 28% of felony convictions ended with probationary sentences.
474. MATTHEW R. DUROSE & PATRICK A. LANGAN, U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE, FELONY SENTENCES IN STATE COURTS, 2004, at 3 (2007).
475. Yearly, the national estimates of adjudicated juveniles sentenced to placement are in the 22%-25% range
476. C. Puzzanchera & W. Kang, Juvenile Court Statistics Databook (2008), http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/jcsdb/asp/process.asp. There are no estimates for the length of sentences given to or served by juvenile inmates.
477. Statutes permitting transfer to adult court tend to raise the severity of offense and record requirements as the age of the accused decreases. See SANBORN & SALERNO, supra note 450, at app. G-H.
478. Joseph B. Sanborn, Jr., Second-Class Justice, First-Class Punishment: The Use of Juvenile Records in Sentencing Adults, 81 JUDICATURE 206, 209-10 (1998).
479. The MacArthur group had suggested no one younger than fourteen years old should be prosecuted in criminal court. See Grisso et al., supra note 276, at 358. Since that study, observations have surfaced such that any state prosecuting anyone younger than fifteen or even sixteen years of age could be risking wholesale prosecution of incompetent defendants. See, e.g., Feld, supra note 384, at 525; Grisso & Steinberg, supra note 93, at 625. The next step to be anticipated from the DPs is their requesting an appellate court to extend a Roper- like categorical exemption to the prosecution of anyone younger than a certain age in criminal court due to their finding widespread incompetency among these youths in their studies.
480. Belter & Grisso, supra note 391, at 900.
481. GRISSO, supra note 418, at 96.
482. Id. at 120.
483. Id. at 89.
484. Grisso et al., supra note 276, at 360 (footnote omitted).
485. See Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 738 (1972). In Jackson, the pretrial delay involved years.
486. Id. at 361.
487. Schnyder, supra note 164, at 86; Viljoen, supra note 313, at 63.