Evaluations of Urban Sovereign Citizens' Competency to Stand Trial.

There are few studies of sovereign citizens undergoing competency-to-stand-trial evaluations and little has been written about African-American or urban sovereign citizens. In this study, we examined competency-to-stand-trial reports of 36 New York City defendants who declared themselves to be sovereign citizens during their evaluations. All were men and 33 were African American. The majority denied recent or remote histories of psychiatric hospitalizations or substance use. Sixty-nine percent were deemed competent. Compared with those deemed competent, those deemed not competent were significantly more likely to have diagnosed psychotic disorders and to have reported histories of psychiatric hospitalizations. The 36 who declared themselves sovereign citizens were compared with 200 who did not, from a study conducted in the same forensic clinic. The sovereign citizens were significantly more likely to be male, African American, and high school graduates and were significantly less likely to report a history of psychiatric hospitalization or substance use. Compared with the nonsovereign citizens, they were less likely to receive a diagnosis of psychotic or mood disorders during the competency evaluation and were more likely to be deemed competent. Included are suggestions to assist forensic examiners conducting evaluations of these difficult cases.

Competency to stand trial evaluations in a multicultural population: Associations between psychiatric, demographic, and legal factors.

Data were examined from an archival sample of Competency to Stand Trial (CST) reports of 200 consecutive New York City pre-trial defendants evaluated over a five-month period. Approximately a fourth of defendants in the present study were immigrants; many required the assistance of interpreters. The examiners conducting the CST evaluation diagnosed approximately half of the defendants with a primary diagnosis of a psychotic disorder and deemed over half not competent. Examiners reached the same conclusion about competency in 96% of cases, about the presence of a psychotic disorder in 91% of cases, and affective disorder in 85% of cases. No significant differences between psychologists and psychiatrists were found for rates of competency/incompetency opinions. Compared to those deemed competent, defendants deemed not competent had significantly higher rates of prior psychiatric hospitalization and diagnosis of psychotic illness at the time of the CST evaluation but lower rates of reported substance abuse.