CU Forensic Evaluation the Assessment of A Defendant Competency Essay

Attached is unit 5 assignment, the scoring guide, and a sample

The purpose of this assignment is to create a rough draft of the forensic evaluation that you selected in u05a1 from the following four options:

Competency to confess (waive Miranda rights).

Sanity at the time of the offense charged (insanity).

Independent medical evaluation (IME) for psychological damages.

Juvenile court evaluation for amenability to treatment.

Instructions:

For this assignment, you will begin to complete an outline of key components of a forensic evaluation, which will be further completed in u09a1. In this initial draft of your forensic evaluation, include the following components (a forensic evaluation generally has all of these elements, although some evaluators may provide more background information on the evaluee than others—many examples of forensic evaluations are provided in Chapter 19 of your Melton textbook):

Introduction

Explain the legal question being asked.

Invent a fictional client to be evaluated and describe all relevant characteristics of this evaluee (evaluee name, gender and age).

Informed Consent

Include a paragraph explaining what you would tell the evaluee about the nature and purpose of the evaluation, including any limitations to confidentiality and release of information.

Interview Questions

Based on the particular type of evaluation you selected, include a section describing the questions related to the referral question that you plan to ask your evaluee.

Collateral Information

Include other third-party information relevant to the legal question being asked that you would obtain.

Test Battery

Justify the appropriateness of two instruments that you would administer for the type of evaluation you are conducting.

Use the Sample Forensic Evaluation (linked in Resources) to assist in formatting your evaluation. Note that your forensic evaluation does not require this level of detail in the background history.

Additional Requirements:

In addition to the above objectives, your assignment should meet the following requirements:

Written communications are free of errors that detract from the overall message.

Formatting: current edition APA style and format.

Length of paper: 6–8 pages.

Font and font size: Times New Roman, 12 point.

PSY8340
U03a1 Supreme Court Decision Paper
Please select from the following list of Supreme Court decisions:
Competence to Stand Trial
o Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985)
o Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981)
o Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (1996)
o Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975)
o Dusky v. U.S., 362 U.S. 402 (1960)
o Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972)
o Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 1244 (1992)
o Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966)
o Riggins v. Nevada, 524 U.S. 127 (1992)
o Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003)
Criminal Responsibility
o Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985)
o Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006)
o Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992)
o Jones v. U.S., 463 U.S. 354 (1983)
o Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (1996)
Death Penalty
o Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)
o Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983)
o Eddings v. Oklahoma, 436 U.S. 921 (1978)
o Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981)
o Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986)
o Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)
o Hall v. Florida, 472 U.S. (2014)
o Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 (1978)
o Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991)
o Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)
o Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010)
Violence Risk Assessment
o Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983)
o Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002)
o Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997)
Child Custody
o Baltimore City Department of Social Services v. Bouknight, 493 U.S. 549 (1990)
o DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189
o Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (1990)
o Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (1981)
o Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817 (1967)
Capella Proprietary and Confidential
1
o
o
o
o
Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990)
Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429 (1984)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982)
White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 (1992)
Child Abuse & Neglect
o DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189
o Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (1987)
o Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982)
Juvenile Justice
o Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979)
o In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967)
o In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970)
o Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966)
o Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)
Capella Proprietary and Confidential
2
Running head: FORENSIC EVALUATION
Forensic Evaluation
Tiffany Hanna
November 2020
Forensic Evaluation
Introduction
1
FORENSIC EVALUATION
2
Forensic evaluation is an essential aspect of any country’s criminal justice system. For
example, when an individual is presented before a judge, the judge may make an order for
forensic evaluations to be conducted on the accused person to determine their fitness to stand
trial and, at the same time, help to determine criminal responsibility. In a civil court, during a
hearing in guardianship, the court may make an order for an assessment to be done on an
individual to determine whether their mental state may allow them to be granted guardianship
of a child. Whether it is in a criminal or civil case, a forensic evaluation plays an important
role in assisting in the administration of justice. There are different types of evaluations that
may be conducted by professionals. The type of assessment to be conducted plays an
important role in the determination of the methodology to be applied. The primary purpose of
this paper is to provide a forensic evaluation that focuses on four different types of forensic
assessment, as well as a methodology that may be used in the forensic evaluation.
Types of forensic evaluation
There are many types of forensic evaluations that are aimed at achieving varying
objectives. The following is an analysis of some types of forensic evaluation;
Competency to confess
In the United States justice system, the Miranda warning refers to the notification that
the police provide to suspects who are already in their custody on their rights to keep quiet
(Goldstein et al., 2018). While many accused persons will always take this advice and refuse
to give any information to the police, there are instances where some accused persons seek to
waive this right and provide information to the police. The competency to confess is a
forensic assessment that determines the ability of an individual to waive the Miranda
warning. When an individual makes the decision to waive these rights, a court may order for
a forensic assessment to be done on the individuals to determine their state of mind and their
FORENSIC EVALUATION
3
ability to confess. One of the principles of natural justice is that an individual cannot be
compelled to adduce incriminating evidence in court. Thus, when an accused person seeks to
waive this right, the court will order for competency to confess evaluation to be conducted on
the individual (Walker et al., 2020). In the event where the outcome of the assessment of the
outcome suggests that the accused person was not in a state of mind to confess, such a
confession will not be admissible in the trial.
Sanity at the time of the offense charged
A forensic assessment to determine the sanity of an individual at the time the alleged
offense was committed is one of the most common forensic assessments conducted in
criminal proceedings. In this assessment, psychologists will examine the accused persons to
determine whether or not the individual was in the right frame of mind when the alleged
offense occurred. For example, when an individual is accused of murder, one of the defenses
that they may present in court is that they were not in the right frame of mind at the time of
the offense. It is only a forensic examination that can give information on whether or not the
individual was in the right frame of mind at the time of the incident.
Independent medical evaluation (IME) for psychological damages
An independent medical evaluation takes place when a healthcare professional who
had not previously been involved with a patient’s healthcare is tasked to carry out an
independent examination of an individual. In this evaluation, the doctor-patient relationship.
In many cases, the assessment seeks to evaluate work-related injuries or any other medical
condition where liability is being contested. When this assessment is done, there is usually a
claim for compensation or for a party to be held responsible for acts of negligence that caused
the medical condition (Byard, 2018). There are many parties that may request an independent
medical evaluation. Some of them include an employer, insurer, and a court of law. However,
FORENSIC EVALUATION
4
in many cases, an independent medical evaluation is sought when there is a claim of
traumatic injury and during litigation.
Juvenile court evaluation for amenability to treatment
These are forensic evaluations that a court orders for the evaluation of whether or not
a child who is before the court is amenable to treatment. In many of these cases, the
assessment determines the presence of a mental health disorder in the child that needs to be
addressed. However, it is critical to note that when carrying out this evaluation, the interest is
not only on the present condition but also on the past medications offered to the child and
how the child responded to the treatment. Additionally, the evaluation will examine the
presence of any factors that may have complicated the past treatment that was offered to the
patient. While it may not have been a traditional practice in the juvenile court for children to
enter into the insanity defense, this is increasingly becoming a common practice across the
world (Chadda, 2013). When an adolescent is presented before a juvenile court to respond to
some charges, it is possible that the defense can seek to enter into an insanity defense. This
will prompt the court to order for the juvenile court evaluation for amenability to treatment.
Selected methodology-Competency to confess
As indicated earlier, the Miranda rights refer to the rights of accused persons in the
custody of law enforcement to keep quiet and not to give any evidence to the police. The
police, upon apprehending suspects, is expected to issue or inform the individuals of these
rights. Thus, in many instances, accused persons decide to keep quiet when they are
apprehended in the exercise of these rights. However, there are instances where accused
persons make decisions to waive these rights. When an accused person suggests that they
would want to waive these rights, the courts will decide to order for a forensic evaluation to
be done on the accused persons to determine their competency or ability to confess.
FORENSIC EVALUATION
5
An assessment to evaluate the competency to confess is often done after the
confession has been done. To make this assessment, a comprehensive forensic evaluation
must be done. Some of the most critical aspects of this evaluation include an in-depth
interrogation of the patient’s medical history, an examination of the person’s mental status,
and robust psychological testing to review the individual’s cognitive and emotional
functioning. In this methodology, it is essential to note that the focus is on the potential
psychological state that may have been displayed at the time of police questioning. It is
recorded that “given that the evaluation must be functionally based—that is, clinically
relevant data should be integrated with the appropriate legal criteria (i.e., knowing,
intelligent, and voluntary), the mental health professional must specifically assess behavior
relevant to the legal criteria” (Cases, 2017).
References
FORENSIC EVALUATION
6
Byard, R. W. (2018). A forensic evaluation of impalement injuries. Medicine, Science and
the Law, 58(2), 85-92.
Cases, L. (2017). Evaluation of Competencies in the Criminal Justice System. The American
Psychiatric Association Publishing Textbook of Forensic Psychiatry, 263.
Chadda, R. K. (2013). Forensic evaluations in psychiatry. Indian journal of psychiatry, 55(4),
393.
Goldstein, N. E., Haney-Caron, E., Levick, M., & Whiteman, D. (2018). Waving Good-Bye
to Waiver: A Developmental Argument Against Youths’ Waiver of Miranda
Rights. NYUJ Legis. & Pub. Pol’y, 21, 1.
Walker, L. E., Shapiro, D., & Akl, S. (2020). Competency to Stand Trial. In Introduction to
Forensic Psychology (pp. 53-67). Springer, Cham.
Draft of Forensic Evaluation Scoring Guide
Due Date: Unit 7
Percentage of Course Grade: 20%.
CRITERIA
NON-PERFORMANCE
BASIC
PROFICIENT
DISTINGUISHED
Create a forensic evaluation
appropriate to the age and
gender of a fictional evaluee.
15%
Does not create a forensic
evaluation appropriate to
the age and gender of a
fictional evaluee.
Creates a partial forensic
evaluation appropriate to
the age and gender of a
fictional evaluee.
Creates a forensic
evaluation appropriate to
the age and gender of a
fictional evaluee.
Creates a forensic
evaluation appropriate to
the age and gender of a
fictional evaluee, and
provides clear examples
throughout
Explain the legal question being
asked.
5%
Does not explain the legal
question being asked.
Identifies the legal question
being asked.
Explains the legal question
being asked.
Explains the legal question
being asked, and cites
relevant state laws.
Explain all aspects of informed
consent pertaining to this
evaluation.
15%
Does not explain all
aspects of informed
consent pertaining to this
evaluation.
Identifies aspects of
informed consent
pertaining to this
evaluation.
Explains all aspects of
informed consent pertaining
to this evaluation.
Explains all aspects of
informed consent pertaining
to this evaluation, and
describes associated
ethical implications.
Justify the questions most
appropriate to ask the fictional
client in this evaluation.
20%
Does not justify the
questions most appropriate
to ask the fictional client in
this evaluation.
Identifies the questions
most appropriate to ask the
fictional client in this
evaluation.
Justifies the questions most
appropriate to ask the
fictional client in this
evaluation.
Justifies the questions most
appropriate to ask the
fictional client in this
evaluation, and cites
current best practices.
Justify the questions most
appropriate to ask the fictional
client in this evaluation.
20%
Does not justify the
questions most appropriate
to ask the fictional client in
this evaluation.
Identifies the questions
most appropriate to ask the
fictional client in this
evaluation
Justifies the questions most
appropriate to ask the
fictional client in this
evaluation.
Justifies the questions most
appropriate to ask the
fictional client in this
evaluation, and cites
current best practices.
Describe the third-party
information most relevant to the
legal question being asked in
this evaluation.
15%
Does not describe the third-
party information most
relevant to the legal
question being asked in
this evaluation.
Describes with partial
clarity the third-party
information most relevant
to the legal question being
asked in this evaluation.
Describes the third-party
information most relevant to
the legal question being
asked in this evaluation.
Describes the third-party
information most relevant to
the legal question being
asked in this evaluation,
and explains the relevance
of this information.
Justify appropriate instruments
for the evaluation being
conducted.
20%
Does not justify appropriate
instruments for the
evaluation being
conducted.
Describes appropriate
instruments for the
evaluation being
conducted.
Justifies appropriate
instruments for the
evaluation being
conducted
Justifies appropriate
instruments for the
evaluation being
conducted, and integrates
support from scholarly
literature.
Communicate in a manner that
is scholarly, professional, and
consistent with expectations for
members of the psychological
professions.
10%
Does not communicate in a
manner that is scholarly,
professional, and
consistent with
expectations for members
of the psychological
professions.
Communicates in a manner
that is sometimes but not
always scholarly,
professional, and
consistent with
expectations for members
of the psychological
professions.
Communicates in a manner
that is scholarly,
professional, and
consistent with
expectations for members
of the psychological
professions.
Communicates with
exceptional clarity in a
manner that is scholarly,
professional, and
consistent with
expectations for members
of the psychological
professions.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment