Competency Court Practices Questioned
Yesterday’s oral argument before the Nevada Supreme Court, en banc, in Scarbo V. District Court , Case No. 51152, attracted the attention of the press, as shown by the R-J ‘s article Supreme Court: Judge's methods reviewed.
The issue presented is whether it is proper for a District Court judge making a competency determination to withhold from counsel the reports relied upon in making the determination. Apparently, both defense and prosecution are provided only one page summaries of the court-appointed doctor’s conclusions.
The article notes that the justices expressed disbelief over contentions that Judge Jackie Glass refused to allow the defense counsel to submit reports from doctors to refute the findings of the court-appointed doctors. The state defended the practice, arguing that relying solely on the court appointed doctors assured neutrality.
The context of the challenge is the two-day-per week "competency court" presided over by Judge Glass. Apparently, the process of determining the competency of a defendant to participate in the criminal justice process has been streamlined.
I find this practice of refusing any input from anyone other than the court-appointed doctors interesting, to say the least. Has anyone tracked the outcomes to determine whether the average outcomes has changed since the change in procedure?
