Enhancing the Value of Expert Assistance in Pro Se Competence Determinations

Forensic mental health practitioners are comfortable assessing criminal defendants' competence to stand trial. They have a long history of making such assessments and a large body of research and scholarship to guide them. In recent years, however, the courts have drawn a distinction between general trial competence (i.e., competence while represented by counsel) and competence to proceed pro se (i.e., competence without counsel). The seminal case on point is Indiana v. Edwards (554 U.S. 164 (2008)). In Edwards, the Court found that general trial competence may provide an inadequate measure of pro se competence. Recognizing the profession's need for direction in making the more particularized assessment called for in pro se cases, White and Gutheil offer a new "Model for Assessing Defendant Competence to Self-Represent." Neatly tied to the elements of pro se competence, discussed in Edwards, and envisioning a fresh new role for experts, consistent with the Court's reasoning, the model provides a valuable resource for forensic practitioners.