Attorney Perspectives on Juvenile and Adult Clients’ Competence to Plead Guilty

This study examines the competence requirement for entering a plea.  The study surveyed criminal defense attorneys and asked questions regarding their experience raising the issue of competence in both juvenile and criminal court. The survey also inquired into what factors led to the attorneys’ decision not to formally raise the competence issue, even when the attorneys had concerns about their client’s competency. The researchers hypothesized that only a few attorneys would have experience formally questioning a client’s competence to plead guilty and that the number would be higher in juvenile court than in criminal court.  The researchers also hypothesized that a large number of attorneys would have had concerns about a defendant’s competence but did not raise the issue before the court due to the potential negative impact on the defendant’s case. The results of the study showed that a majority of the participants had raised questions about the defendant’s competence at the pleading stage. The attorneys that had raised the issue more frequently did so for juvenile clients. The study also revealed that the leading reason attorneys did not raise the competence issue was because they knew the defendant would not fall within the purview of the very low competency standard.

“Defense attorneys are clearly faced with difficult choices when they suspect their clients are incompetent to plead. The current study adds to the literature by suggesting that a substantial minority of attorneys may have faced a professional quandary in terms of doubting a client’s competence to plead but choosing not to raise the issue—a conflict for which little professional guidance exists.” p. 20