A LEGAL PROFESSIONALS GUIDE TO EVALUATING COMPETENCY TO PROCEED AND LIKELIHOOD OF

SUCCESSFUL ATTAINMENT WITH JUVENILES

IVAN KRUH, PH.D.FORENSIC & CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY – OSSINING, NY

Juvenile Competency Training ConferenceOctober 18, 2013

Oxford University Press Series

Thomas Grisso, PhD

            

   

Competency to Proceed

Competency to Stand Trial

Criminal defendants must be able to meaningfully participate in the case against them.

Yield defense decisions reflecting defendant’s wishes

Promote accurate and just adjudications Retain the integrity and dignity of the court

process Protects:

The defendant being tried The state’s pursuit of fair and reliable adjudications

Traditional Threats: Acute Psychosis or Mania Cognitive Disability (especially Mental Retardation)

Competency to Stand Trial USSC

Dusky v. United States (1960): …the test must be whether [the defendant] has

sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding – and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him

Godinez v. Moran (1993): [All c]riminal defendants – not merely those who

plead guilty – may be required to make important decisions once criminal proceedings have been initiated. And while the decision to plead guilty is undeniably a profound one, it is no more complicated than the sum total of decisions that a defendant may be called upon to make during the course of a trial.

Competence to Proceed – Utah Law Juvenile Court Act (Chapter 6)

78A-6-105(30). Definitions.“Not competent to proceed” means that a minor, due to a mental disorder, intellectual disability, or related condition as defined, lacks the ability to(a) understand the nature of the proceedings against them or of the potential disposition for the offense charged; or(b) consult with counsel and participate in the proceedings against them with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.

Competency to ProceedAs a Forensic Concept

Four-factor general model summarizes most models Factual Understanding

Basic, concrete knowledge of the legal process Rational Appreciation

Accurate “beliefs” about what is understood about court

Assisting Counsel Ability to participate with and meaningfully aid defense

counsel in developing and presenting the defense Legal Decision Making

Ability to consider legal alternatives and reach adequately contemplated legal choices

Competency to ProceedFactual Understanding

Basic, concrete knowledge of the legal process

Understands they are accused of a crime Understands what the alleged crime is Understands the court will decide guilt and

innocence Understands the trial could result in punishment Understands what punishments are possible Understands the various ways one may plead Understands the roles of various participants at a

trial Understands the basic process of a trial

Competency to ProceedRational Appreciation

Accurate “beliefs” about what is factually understood about court

Is able to manipulate the information that is factually understood

Is able to contemplate the implications and significance of what is understood

Is able to rationally apply that knowledge in one’s actual case-related situations

Competency to ProceedAssisting Counsel

Ability to participate with and meaningfully aid the defense attorney in developing and presenting the defense

Is able to understand and adequately respond to counsel’s questions during pre-trial consultations in a manner that provides relevant information for mounting a defense

Is able to provide a coherent account of the facts of the alleged crime

Is able to identify potential sources of relevant evidence and witnesses

Is able to identify reasons for confronting opposing witnesses Is able to manage the stresses and demands of trial process Is able to follow and comprehend the testimony of other witnesses

so to be able to alert counsel to any distortions of the facts Is able to provide testimony with relevance, coherence, and

independence of judgment.

Competency to ProceedLegal Decision-Making

Ability to consider process and weigh legal alternatives, and ability to reach and communicate adequately contemplated legal choices

Is able to rationally decide how to plead Is able to rationally decide about going to trial Is able to rationally decide about accepting a plea offer Is able to rationally decide about testifying Is able to rationally decide about calling certain

witnesses Is able to rationally decide about pursuing certain

defenses

Competency to Proceed – Utah Law

Juvenile Court Act (Chapter 6) 78A-6-1301(7). Juvenile Competency.

In conducting the evaluation and in the report determining if a minor is competent to proceed as defined in Subsection 78A-6-105(30) the examiner shall consider the impact of a mental disorder, intellectual disability or related disorder on a minor’s capacity to:(a) comprehend and appreciate the charges or allegations;(b) disclose to counsel pertinent facts, events, or states of mind;(c) comprehend and appreciate the range and nature of possible penalties, if applicable, that may be imposed in the proceedings against the minor;(d) engage in reasoned choice of legal strategies and options;(e) understand the adversarial nature of the proceedings;(f) manifest appropriate courtroom behavior; and(g) testify relevantly, if applicable.

Competency to Proceed& Juveniles

Competence to Proceed& Juveniles During the era of “rehabilitative” juvenile justice,

incompetence irrelevant Reforms of the 1960s and 1970s

Kent v. US (1966) In re Gault (1967) In re Winship (1970) McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971) Breed v. Jones (1975)

Reforms of the 1980s and 1990s Response to public outcry against juvenile violence. Deterioration of rehabilitative ideal. Deterioration of special protections. Growth of retribution traditionally reserved for adult system.

In modern juvenile justice, respondents face more serious sanctions and are afforded due process rights

Competence becomes relevant

Differentiating Competent & Not Competent Youth

Factors that differentiate across studies: Age

Under 12 – Very High Risk 13-15 – Elevated Risk 15 and above – Similar to Adults

Intelligence Mentally Retarded – Very High Risk Borderline IQ – Elevated Risk Low Average and Above – Similar to Adults

Academic Functioning Special education placement and poor Achievement Test

scores Grades and Retention not related

Mental Health Problems Findings less consistent

Differentiating Competent & Not Competent Youth

Factors that do not differentiate: Experience with Legal System Race Gender Socioeconomic Status Nature of Instant Charges Court of Jurisdiction (Juvenile vs. Criminal)

Red Flags for Problems with Juvenile Competency

Youth seems: Easily Confused Detached and/or

Indifferent Severely Depressed Hostile and/or

aggressive Inattentive and/or

Distracted Oppositional and/or

Defiant Immature and/or

Infantile

Youth demonstrates: Poor Memory Difficulty

communicating information

Difficulty understanding attorney

Disorganized speech Peculiar statements Responding to

internal stimuli Chaotic and/or

bizarre behavior

Situational Red Flags for Problems with Juvenile Competency

Limited contact with &/or trust of attorney Alleged fact pattern is complex Evidence against the youth is unclear Hearings are likely to be lengthy Hearings are likely to involve many

witnesses Case likely to require use of a complex

defense Testimony by youth is likely to be

necessary Plea bargaining is likely

Evaluations of Competence to Proceed

Conceptualizing the Process

Competency To Proceed Evaluation Model (Grisso, 2003)

The Functional Question What competency-related deficits exist?

The Causal Question What are the causes of the deficits?

The Contextual Question How will the deficits impact this examinee in their

case? The Conclusory Question

Are the deficits adequately impairing to meet the legal test?(Is the examinee not competent?)

The Remedial (Attainment) Question Can the deficits be remediated within the legal time-

frame? How?

The Functional Question

What competence-related deficits exist?

Summary of abilities and deficits Purely descriptive:

What the respondent actually knows, understands, believes, and can do

Identifies consistencies and inconsistencies

The Causal Question

What are the causes of the deficits? Forming and testing hypotheses

Connection between identified deficits and examinee’s clinical/developmental problems

Potential causes of deficits include: Clinical causes (i.e., symptoms of mental disorders) Developmental causes (i.e., developmental delay or

immaturity) “Nonclinical” causes, (i.e., feigning/motivation,

evaluation conditions, visual/auditory deficits that interfere with reception of information, lack of experience and acquired information) Typically not considered a reason for a finding of

incompetence

The Contextual Question

How will the deficits impact this examinee in their case?

Having a deficit does not equal being incompetent

Primary contextual factor: Specific demands of the respondent’s case

Secondary contextual factor: Caretaker influence

The Conclusory Question

Are the deficits adequately impairing to meet the legal test? (Is the examinee incompetent?)

Must begin with a presumption of competence

Are the deficits significant enough to warrant an incompetency finding?

The Remediation (Attainment) Question

Can the deficits be remedied within the legal time-frame? How?

Interventions to alleviate problems causing the deficits

Classic model = medication to reduce clinical symptoms Unmedicated Psychotic Disorder Unmedicated child with severe ADHD Less useful with many disorders

Pervasive Developmental Disorders Language Disorders

Most common intervention used with youth = EDUCATION

The “Ultimate Issue” Issue

Ultimate Issue = the court’s legal question Is the youth competent to proceed? Is there a substantial probability that the minor may

attain competency in the foreseeable future?

Ultimate Issue Issue = unresolved debate about whether forensic clinicians should answer it.Against For

Answering is the domain of the judge because the answer is a legal, social, moral matter – not clinical

The court is aware any opinion is only advisory.

Some laws forbid these opinions Many laws allow and many judges demand these opinions

Current science is not precise enough to answer these questions

Science has advanced so that reasonable answers can be given

Evaluations of Competence to Proceed

The Evaluation Process

Overview of Data Collection

Target relevant domains Historical/Developmental Context Current Mental Status Current Case-Related Functioning

Obtain reliable information by emphasizing:

manualized and structured checklists/interviews corroboration for obtained data psychological tests (when applicable and feasible) multiple interviews (when applicable and feasible)

Use a flexible approach

Data Collection

Third-Party Information Sources (Records & Interviews)

Teachers & School Officials Mental Health & Medical Providers Social Service Representatives Probation Officers & Detention Officials Defense Attorney

Caregivers Psychosocial History Symptom Observations to inform diagnosis Observations relevant to competence Potential influence upon competence Recommendations for data sources (Records &

Interviews)

Data Collection

Interview of Youth Clinical and Developmental Interview

Notification of Rights Psychosocial History Symptom History/Diagnostic Information Current Mental Status

Competence Interview Direct Observation of Relevant Functioning Clinical and Developmental Interview Functional Interview of Competence Abilities

Structured Interviewing Case-Specific Interviewing

Data Collection

Structured Interview of Competency Abilities Tools Designed for Adults

Some have been studied with juveniles: Fitness Interview Test – Revised (FIT-R) MacArthur Competency Assessment Tool – Criminal Adjudication

(Mac-CAT-CA) Some have been recommended for use with juveniles:

Competency Assessment Screening Tool for Mentally Retarded Defendants (CAST-MR)

Problems with using with juveniles: Some content inapplicable to juvenile court Not designed to address developmental impediments

Appreciation Reasoning Ability to Learn

Data Collection

Structured Interview of Competency Abilities Juvenile Adjudicative Competence Interview

(JACI) Past Experiences with Court

Framing and Context

Nature and Purpose of the Trial Understanding & Appreciation Items + Flexible Capacity Checks

Roles of Participants Understanding & Appreciation Items + Flexible Capacity Checks

Assisting Counsel Understanding & Appreciation Items + Flexible Capacity Checks

Reasoning and Decision Making Reasoning Items

Participating at the Juvenile Court Hearing Behavioral Observations

Data Collection

Psychological Testing (as relevant and needed)

Of Youth Completed by Caregivers (or others)

Intellectual Functioning (esp. Abstraction Skills)

Memory & Learning Abilities Attentional Abilities Current Mental Health Problems /

Symptoms Developmental Functioning / Level Response Style

Data Analysis & Forming Opinions

The Functional Question What competence-related deficits exist?

The Causal Question What is the cause(s) of the deficits?

The Contextual Question How will the deficits impact this examinee in their

case? The Conclusory Question

Are the deficits adequately impairing to meet the legal test?(Is the examinee incompetent?)

The Remedial (Attainment) Question Can the deficits be remediated within the legal time-

frame? How?

Evaluations of Competency to Proceed

Assessing Likelihood of Successful Attainment

Pursuing Attainment Requires Likelihood of Success

Jackson v. Indiana 406 U.S. 715 (1972): “…a person charged by a State with a criminal offense

who is committed solely on account of his incapacity to proceed to trial cannot be held more than the reasonable period of time necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that he will attain that capacity in the foreseeable future. If it is determined that this is not the case, then the State must either institute the customary civil commitment proceedings that would be required to commit indefinitely any other citizen, or release the defendant. Furthermore, even if it is determined that the defendant probably soon will be able to stand trial, his continued commitment must be justified by progress toward that goal.”

Competency to Proceed – Utah Law Juvenile Court Act (Chapter 6)

78A-6-1303(8). Disposition on finding of incompetency to proceed – Subsequent hearings – Notice to Prosecuting Attorneys

If at any time during the attainment period the court finds that there is not a substantial probability that the minor will attain competency in the foreseeable future, the court shall terminate the competency proceeding, dismiss the delinquency charges without prejudice, and release the minor from any custody order related to the pending delinquency proceeding, unless the prosecutor informs the court that commitment proceedings pursuant to Title 62A, Chapter 5, Services for People with Disabilities, or Title 62A, Chapter 15, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Act, will be initiated…

Types of Attainment Interventions Pharmacological

The “Psychotic Adult” Model Goal: Remission of symptoms causing

deficits Less Straightforward with Childhood

Disorders Psychotherapeutic

Less Common Model with Adults Goal: Remission of symptoms causing

deficits May augment or replace pharmacology

There is a literature – should be consulted However: Target in literature is not

competence

Types of Attainment Interventions

Educational The “Mentally Retarded” Adult Model Goal: Teaching of skills to alleviate deficits Widely Applicable with Youth Types of Educational Curricula:

Traditional Training Curricula Didactic Psychoeducation Criticized for focus on memorization of facts

21st Century Training Curricula Multi-Modal and Active-Learning Techniques Systematic and Explicit Instruction Focus on Development of Specific Skills

Abstraction ~ Communication ~ Social Skills

Clinical LiteratureJuvenile Competency Remediation

Certain sources of deficits decrease the likelihood of successful attainment: Disorders That Are Less Responsive to

Treatment Intellectual Disabilities Autism

Disorders That Require Long-Term Interventions Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Receptive & Expressive Language Disorder

Delayed Development Young Age

Grisso, 2005

Otto et al., 2006

Schouten, 2003

Clinical LiteratureJuvenile Competency Remediation

Certain types of deficits decrease the likelihood of successful attainment: Factual Understanding deficits generally more

remediable

Appreciation, Assisting, and Decision-Making deficits generally less remediable

Grisso, 2005; 2013

Peterson-Badali & Abramovitch, 1993

Viljoen & Grisso, 2007

Viljoen & Roesch, 2007

Empirical LiteratureJuvenile Competency

Remediation Studies of time-frames

Very brief interventions are rarely successful

Cooper, 1997

Viljoen, Odgers, Grisso, & Tillbrook, 2007

Four-Month to Six-Month Period seems Essential: Most youth ordered for attainment successfully

attained by 6 months If did not attain by 6 months, likelihood of

success drops markedlyMcGaha et al., 2001

Warren et al., 2009

Empirical LiteratureJuvenile Competency Remediation

~ 70% Returned to Court Competent Success may depend on:

Source of deficits: Mental Illness 85-90% Intellectual Disability 50-55% Both 50-65%

Age: Younger Adolescents 60-75% Middle Adolescents 75-80% Older Adolescents 65-70%

McGaha, Otto, McClaren & Petrila, 2001

Warren, DuVal, Komarovskaya, Chauhan, Buffington-Vollum & Ryan, 2009

Breaking Down the Remedial (Attainment) Question

What are the specific functional deficits? Factual Understanding Rational Appreciation Assisting Counsel Legal Decision Making

What are the sources of those deficits? A treatable mental disorder Weak cognitive skills (normal &/or pathological)

Weak psychosocial skills (normal &/or pathological)

What types of interventions are most likely to help each deficit? Psychiatric Interventions Psychotherapeutic interventions Educational Interventions

How long is intervention expected to require for each deficit? How did youth respond to training efforts during the evaluation? How has youth responded to similar interventions in the past? What does empirical and clinical literature suggest?

Attainment Opinions

Opinions based on clinical judgment Legal professionals must know Evaluators must remember

Opinions only as good as the reasoning/rationale Multiple deficits may require multiple estimates Prediction can quickly become complex Evaluator opinions are best understood as

reasonable, but limited, guidance “I don’t know” may not be a cop out. Legal determination Evaluator opinion

Substantial Likelihood vs. Probability of Success

Appropriate Attainment Setting

Detention Only if youth’s risk to community or potential

to abscond warrants it Psychiatric Hospitalization

Only if treatment of clinical issue typically warrants it

Some Unique Scenarios Vast Majority of Youth Treatable in

Community

Services When Attainment Not Successful

Civil Commitment Title 62A, Chapter 5, Services for People with

Disabilities Title 62A, Chapter 15, Substance Abuse and

Mental Health Act Child/Person/Family In Need of Supervision

A minor who is a habitual truant from school Referral to Mental Health System

The “Development Dilemma”

What should be done with youth who need to “grow up” to become competent?

Courts torn on how to handle Some courts allow dismissal of charges

Some with prejudice Some without prejudice

Some courts continue for extended period, allow the youth to grow up, and revisit after

Unique complexity of these issues in Utah

Why Are The Experts Dueling?

1. Differences in Answers to Evaluation Questions.

2. Differences in Quality of Evaluation.

3. Different Interpretations of Legal Ambiguities

Basic Contents of a Good Reportand Questions to Ask to Assess This

Includes identifying and referral information States legal questions to be addressed

Did the examiner correctly understand the relevant law? Did the examiner correctly translate these to psychological

issues? Identifies sources relied upon

Did the examiner fail to consider any relevant data? Contains Valid and Reliable Facts

Did the examiner adequately corroborate the data? Did the examiner employ appropriate and valid

techniques, tests, and instruments to obtain the data?

Basic Contents of a Good Reportand Questions to Ask to Assess This

Describes the capacities relevant to the Competency to Proceed Did the examiner describe psychological capacities

relevant to Competency to Proceed? Creates a connection between these capacities

and Competency to Proceed Did the examiner offer a logical connection between the

psychological capacities and opinions about Competency to Proceed?

Basic Contents of a Good Reportand Questions to Ask to Assess This

Offers concluding opinions Did the examiner offer an Ultimate Issue opinion? If so, is

the underlying rationale for this opinion made evident? Is it consistent with the facts?

Did the examiner avoid an Ultimate Issue opinion? If so, is the underlying rationale for forming an opinion made evident? Is it consistent with the facts?

Offers limits of the opinions Did the examiner explain his/her uncertainties about the

concluding opinions? Did the examiner offer alternative explanations for the

findings and the reasons they were rejected?

Legal Ambiguity

Are the same degree of competency abilities

required in juvenile court as in criminal court?

The “Competent Adult” standard The “Competent Adolescent” standard The “Fundamental Understanding &

Communication” standard The “Age-Peer” standard The “Flexible Bar” standard

Should There Be A “Lower Bar” or “Flexible Bar” In Juvenile Court?

Yes: Juvenile dispositions less

severe than criminal court Juvenile dispositions

include rehabilitative services

Juvenile Justice Systems still promote rehabilitative ideals

No: Severity of dispositions is

a relative term Juvenile Court should not

substitute for an adequate social welfare/mental health system

Criminal court bar is already very low

Relevant Research

Judges, attorneys, and clinicians appear to use a “Flexible Bar” approach (Jones, 2004)

Given vignettes varying functioning and charges

More likely found incompetent with more serious charges

The type of bar impacts % of youth found incompetent (Viljoen, Zapf, & Roesch, 2007)

Administered competency screening instrument to youth

11-13 (% Incmptnt)

14-15 (% Incmptnt)

16-17 (% Incmptnt)

Adult- Norm 88% 73% 45%

Adolescent-Norm 20% 6% 2%

Basic Und. & Cmnctn.

80% 59% 33%

Legal Ambiguity

Should the predicate requirement include a broader array of mental disorders in juvenile court than

criminal court? Anxiety and Mood disorders Less Severe Cognitive Impairment Developmental Disorders “Soft” Neuropsychological Deficits

Childhood Disorders and Competence

Studies have shown that other disorders may predict poor competency functioning in juveniles (Baerger et al., 2003; Ficke et al., 2005; Kruh et al., 2006; McGaha et al., 2001; Redlich et al., 2003; Viljoen & Roesch, 2005; Viljoen et al., 2005; Warren et al., 2003)

Substance Abuse Disorders Learning Disorders Behavior Disorders Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Borderline Intellectual Functioning

Some clinical disorders with obvious links not yet studied Pervasive Developmental Disorders Communication Disorders

Legal Ambiguity

Should developmental immaturity be considered in juvenile competency

determinations? Younger children at higher risk to be not

competent (Grisso, 1997): Knowing, learning, and applying legal information Appreciating attorneys are advocates, even if guilty Communicating in the face of authority pressures Taking the perspective of others as to adequately

explain Reasoning and decision-making about legal issues

Research supports age-based deficits

“The MacArthur Study:”(Grisso, Steinberg, Woolard, Cauffman, Scott, Lexcen, Reppucci, & Schwartz, 2003)

Compared 927 adolescents and 446 adults on: MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool – Criminal

Adjudication (MacCAT-CA) MacArthur Judgment Evaluation (MacJen)

MacCAT: Youth 15 and younger performed more poorly Youth 15 and younger more likely to demonstrate level

of impairment consistent with adults found incompetent 1/3 of all youth 12-13 were significantly impaired 1/5 of all youth 14-15 were significantly impaired

MacJen: Youth 15 and under more likely to make decisions

based on compliance with authority, focus on short-term consequences, and other more superficial reasons.

“The MacArthur Study”Overall Impairment in COMPETENCE TO PROCEED (i.e., one or more scales)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

11 - 13yo 14-15yo 16-17yo 18+

Significant Impairment

SignificantImpairment

Legal Responses

Judges are more likely to find youth incompetent when they (Cox et al., 2012) : Are younger Have features of psychosocial immaturity

Few states make clear if immaturity-based incompetency is legally recognized (O’Donnell & Gross, 2012): 6 states allow 17 states do not allow

Adolescent Development & Competence to Proceed

Adolescent Development:Basic Domains

Physical Development Neurological Development Emotional Development Cognitive Development Psychosocial Development

Adolescent Development:Cognitive Development

Verbal Fluency Information Processing Skills

Knowledge Base/Experience Organization of Information Short- and Long-Term Memory Sustained Attentional Capacity

Abstraction Skills Grasp the meaning of events Appreciate more complex concepts (e.g., a legal right) Apply learned information or past situations to new situations, Imagine consequences one has never encountered before

(hypothetical situations) Reasoning and Problem Solving

Adolescent Development:Psychosocial Development (Scott-Reppucci-Woolard & Steinberg-Cauffman Models)

Autonomy/Conformity & Compliance Perceptions and Attitudes about Risk Temperance Perspective Taking

Interpersonal Temporal

Adolescent Development:General Features

Development is idiosyncratic

Development is domain-specific

Development is non-linear

Development is progressive

Development is interactional

Adolescent DevelopmentThe Term “Immaturity”

Refers to incomplete or delayed development

Incomplete Development: “Immature compared to adults” Delayed Development: “Immature compared to age-peers”

Describes specific abilities or characteristics, not an overall condition of the youth

Depends on actual functioning, not simply on age

Can be expressed in degrees

Development & Psychopathology

Diagnosis is different with youth Unique disorders Unique presentations of common disorders

Diagnostic clarity is rarer Setting-specific problems Symptom overlap across disorders High comorbidity rates Interactions with normal development

Developmental Psychopathology (Dante Cicchetti)

Symptoms = Exaggerations of normal development

Symptoms interact with development in complex ways

Psychopathology is dimensional

Development-Based Threats to Competence to Proceed

Understanding Less exposure than adults Challenged by abstract concepts (e.g., rights)

Appreciation Superficial understanding yields erroneous

applications Demands beyond their own experience (e.g., role of

defense)

Assisting Counsel Information processing and organization weaknesses Social skill weaknesses Attentional

weaknesses Legal Decision Making

Psychosocial deficits yield poor decisions

The Role of Legal Professionals in Enhancing Juvenile Competency

What can legal professionals do?

Obtain training Youth Development Unique Challenges of Juvenile Defendants Developmentally-sensitive Communication

In attorney consultations: Provide instruction Create a trusting relationship in which the youth

is comfortable asking questions or noting confusion Enhance client involvement in trial preparation Demonstrate loyalty to client Engage in role playing

What can legal professionals do?

In the courtroom: Slow things down Use simplified language Present testimony and arguments in simplified

ways Include procedural steps that can help a

participant structure and track what is happening Assess youth’s understanding on ongoing basis

Provide summaries of what is occurring Have youth paraphrase legal concepts and processes

Allow more time for decision-making in court Time to re-explain options and consequences

What can legal professionals do?

Resources: Buss, E. (1996). “You’re my what?” The problem of children’s misperceptions of their lawyer’s roles.

Fordham Law Review, 64, 1699.Buss, E. (2000). The role of lawyers in promoting juveniles’ competence as defendants. In T. Grisso & R.G. Schwartz (Eds.), Youth on trial: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice (pp. 243-265). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Walker, A.G. (1994). Handbook on questioning children: A lingusitic perspective. Washington, DC: American Bar Association.

Contact Information

Ivan Kruh, PhDForensic & Clinical Psychology

P.O. Box 1754Ossining, NY 10562

PH: (845) 219-2421 IvanKruhPhD@gmail.com

www.DrKruh.com