Judges' and District Attorneys' Perceptions of Competency to Stand Trial Evaluations in Oklahoma

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine Oklahoma judges' and district attorneys' perceptions of competency to stand trial evaluations. Participants in this study were 165 judges and district attorneys from all counties in the state of Oklahoma. More specifically, 75 judges and 90 district attorneys from the state of Oklahoma participated in this study. Each participant completed a survey which was mailed to them on Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences letterhead, with a self-addressed stamped envelope included to facilitate a return response. Descriptive statistics (including percentages, means, and standard deviations) were used to test the hypotheses. Similar to the results found by Graham (2007), there was no strong preference for setting (Oklahoma Forensic Center v. local) to perform competency to stand trial evaluations. However, when the two legal professionals were separated and compared, judges showed a preference for local evaluations, and district attorneys showed a preference for evaluations completed at OFC. Despite preferring their evaluations to be done locally, judges rated evaluations completed at OFC higher overall than those evaluations completed locally. Judges and district attorneys' believed the quality of evaluations has remained the same over the past 3 years for both local and OFC evaluations. There showed to be a strong preference for psychiatrists and doctoral level psychologists over social workers and other licensed mental health professionals to complete evaluations. Judges and DA's continue to perceive competency reports are lacking in information necessary to effectively determine a defendant's competency.