SUNY Upstate Medical University, 766 Irving Avenue, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2011;39(4):565-70.
In Indiana v. Edwards (2008) the U.S. Supreme Court held that a higher standard may be required for pro se competence (PSC) than for competence to stand trial (CST), but provided little guidance for the trial court judge. This survey of forensic mental health experts studied potential PSC criteria. Sixty-eight (22.7%) forensic evaluators replied. Three McGarry criteria were reported as requiring a much higher standard for PSC: to appraise the available legal defenses (45.6%), to plan a legal strategy (51.5%), and to question and challenge witnesses (44.1%). Sixty percent agreed that standby counsel should be mandatory. Respondents opined that average abilities were sufficient for intelligence (77.9%), literacy (69.1%), and verbal ability (70.6%) were sufficient. PSC examiners may wish to assess appraisal of available legal defenses, planning a legal strategy, and questioning and challenging witnesses for a higher standard than CST. Evaluators should also assess the defendant's willingness to accept standby counsel (SBC) and the defendant's motivation for attempting a pro se defense.
在印第安纳州诉爱德华兹案（2008 年）中，美国最高法院认为，与审判能力相比，自行辩护能力（PSC）可能需要更高的标准，但并未为初审法官提供多少指导。本项针对法医心理健康专家的调查研究了潜在的 PSC 标准。共有 68 名（22.7%）法医评估员作出了答复。报告称，有三个麦加里标准要求 PSC 达到更高的标准：评估可用的法律辩护（45.6%）、规划法律策略（51.5%）以及讯问和质疑证人（44.1%）。60%的人同意强制性指定备用律师。受访者认为，智力（77.9%）、读写能力（69.1%）和言语能力（70.6%）的平均能力就足够了。PSC 审查员可能希望评估对可用法律辩护的评估、规划法律策略以及讯问和质疑证人的标准，这些标准要高于审判能力。评估员还应评估被告接受备用律师（SBC）的意愿以及被告尝试自行辩护的动机。
