Decision Making Section Restoration Manual

COLORADO MENTAL HEALTH INSTITUTE @ PUEBLO RATIONAL UNDERSTANDING AND DECISION MAKING CompKit Acknowledgements The IFP Psychology Department & the Court Liaison Program incorporated materials from the Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System, the Florida State Hospital, Patton State Hospital and other systems too numerous to enumerate. In addition the IFP Psychology Department, Rick Mattoon, and the Court Liaison Program created a plethora of role-play and vignettes. Consistent with the Social Learning Program staff mantra “do with patients, not for patients,” we hope these vignettes facilitate our CMHIP patients’ progression towards discharge and autonomy. At minimum, we hope this manual helps ameliorate the boredom endemic to state hospitals. Introduction to Rational Understanding and Decision Making Instructor’s Manual There are several reasons for standardizing and upgrading our treatment for patients adjudicated Incompetent to Proceed: There is almost no data regarding effective psychosocial treatment of competency. Conversely, there is considerably more data on the effective psychosocial treatment of problems preventing competency: poor problem solving, psychosis, inattention, aggression, etc. CMHIP’s psychosocial treatment of NGRI patients excels state hospital standard of practice. CMHIP provides more state of the art psychosocial treatment programs than any other state hospital (Dvoskin). In contrast, CMHIP’s psychosocial treatment of ITP patients was not inconsistent with the standard of practice in state hospitals: the bare minimum required. The bare minimum consisted of “competency groups” targeting legal knowledge. Our ITP patients did not have access to the psychosocial treatments provided to our NGRI patients. We realized that psychosocial treatment of ITP patients needed significant improvement. Little data regarding effective psychosocial treatment. Little is known regarding effective psychosocial treatments for competency. Because most competency restoration programs rely almost exclusively on psychotropic medication for treating psychosis (the most frequent reason for deficits in pretrial competency), there is a paucity of articles targeting psychosocial treatment of competency. This is unfortunate because medications are far from wholly effective. Up to 50% of patients do not take their medications reliably, perhaps because side effects can be distressing. In addition, many patients remain treatment resistant despite adequate doses of antipsychotic drugs. The psychological literature on pretrial competency focuses primarily on assessment, neglecting treatment. In 1990 Siegel and Elwork concluded, “Most of the psychological writings on incompetence to stand trial pertain to how defendants are assessed and diagnosed.” A more recent review of the literature cited seven articles targeting competency restoration treatment (ref). All seven studies targeted legal knowledge: e.g. criminal charges, roles of trial participants, consequences of pleas, and the like (Brown 1992, Bertman et al 2003, Wall et al. 2003, Siegel et al 1990). Three of the seven studies were not experimentally controlled (Davis 1985, Nicholson & Kugler 1991, & Pendelton, 1980). Two studies targeted legal knowledge and underlying problems impeding competency. Siegel et al. used a pretest posttest experimental control group design. Treatment lasted five weeks. The experimental condition focused on courtroom procedures and most importantly a problem solving orientation to legal issues. Problem solving consisted of defining a problem, finding solutions, and selecting a solution. This group met one-hour three times per week. In contrast, the control group focused on the “general psychiatric needs of pts.” For example the group saw a video on using humor in therapy. As expected, the experimental group, in contrast to the control group, demonstrated a significant difference on pre post scores on the Competency Assessment Instrument. The second controlled study targeted psychosocial skills that might help patients compensate for specific deficits (Bertman et al 2003). Such deficits were derived from Louisiana vs. Bennett, outlining 16 items that a judge could consider when evaluating competency. Such deficits were defined legally, not clinically, e.g.: does patient understand the nature of the charges? Is patient able to maintain a consistent defense and what extent if any would his mental condition is apt to deteriorate under the stress of trial? Patients were assigned to one of three groups: deficit focused remediation treatment (N=8), legal rights education (N=10) or standard hospital treatment (N=8). Standard hospital treatment consisted of four 45-minute once weekly legal rights education sessions. The legal rights education group received six individual sessions and four group sessions. These sessions targeted legal knowledge: possible pleas, verdicts, six legal rights of defendant, layout of the court room, roles of different people in court, plea bargains, and the like. Individuals in the deficit remediation condition received six individual sessions targeting patient’s specific charges and remediation of specific legal deficits as defined by Bennett. In addition these individuals attended the same group sessions as the legal rights education group. More frequent and individual competency restoration treatment sessions were more effective that the standard of care: once weekly competency restoration group. Patients in the deficit remediation and legal rights education groups improved on competency as measured by the Bennett criteria and Georgia Court Competency Test, at twice the rate of standard hospital treatment. However no differences were found between individual treatments focusing on legal education vs. individual treatment focusing on pt’s legal deficits as defined by Bennett. It is unfortunate that such deficits were not defined clinically, given the psychosocial data on treating clinical deficits relevant to competency. There is considerably more data on psychosocial treatments of psychosis, inattention, poor memory, aggression, social functioning, etc. In contrast to the paucity of data on restoration treatment, there is significant data suggesting effective treatments for the underlying causes preventing competency. Such problems have previously been categorized (with concomitant intervention strategies) as: psychotic confused (poor reality testing), low functioning (remedial education regarding court knowledge), delusional irrational (coping skills), or disruptive (structure, reinforcement, behavior management) (Noffsinger, 2001). Psychosocial programming such as Social Learning Program (SLP) has been demonstrated to be effective in treating psychosis, attention, and disruptive behaviors such as aggression. In randomly controlled trials, patients who received SLP demonstrated decreases in psychotic and aggressive behaviors and increases in self- care and effective interpersonal behaviors (ref). Cognitive Behavioral Therapy targeting psychosis and delusions has been demonstrated to be effective in 14 randomized controlled trials (Kuipers et al, 2006). Such treatment targets the dimensions of the symptoms such as distress, conviction (degree of belief in delusion) and preoccupation. In the United Kingdom, the National Institute of Clinical Excellence recommends cognitive behavioral therapy for those with persistent positive symptoms of psychosis. A metaanalysis of 27 studies examining the effectiveness of the Liberman Psychosocial Skills Training (ref) concluded that patients who received this treatment experienced increased social functioning, decreased relapse, and increased hospital discharge. Importantly, this treatment was designed specifically for individuals with schizophrenia; the structure and repetition inherent in this treatment facilitates learning. Neurocognitive Remediation programs target cognitive deficits such as working memory, planning, and cognitive flexibility. These deficits are not uncommon among patients diagnosed with schizophrenia. In one randomized study, patients who received cognitive remediation therapy demonstrated improvement in cognitive flexibility and memory, in contrast to control patients who received intensive occupational therapy (Wykes et al., 1999). This manual assumes the following: CMHIP clinicians are free to provide good assessment and treatment to ITP patients. ITP patients are as deserving of effective psychosocial treatments as NGRI patients. Therefore CMHIP will increase access to such treatments. The competency restoration literature is delimiting. An exclusive focus on legal knowledge results in memorization and parroting and is not equivalent to the ability to appreciate and problem-solve a legal situation. An increased focus on problems preventing competency is warranted. GENERAL CLASSIFICATION OF ITP RESIDENTS Many of our ITP residents can be loosely classified in terms of their competency status in one of the following ways: ADVANCED/MAINTENANCE: These residents have successfully completed the competency evaluation or are close to doing so. Their knowledge is intact and their behavior is appropriate. There is consensus that these patients are competent. These residents should not be enrolled in the Factual Knowledge group. These residents may elect to graduate from the Rational Understanding and Decision Making group. Adjunct treatment could focus on coping strategies, jail re-entry, symptom and emotion management, cognitive compensation strategies and continuing treatment in jail and beyond. Conversely, given that these residents are competent, no treatment whatsoever may be needed. DELUSIONAL/PARANOID: These residents have an adequate awareness of their charges, the courtroom proceedings, and the likely outcome but they distort or misinterpret the reality of their particular situations. Education sessions should focus on more realistic coping, communication, and problem solving skills. Individual Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, targeting paranoia, may be warranted. INSUFFICIENT CONCENTRATION, MEMORY, OR PROBLEM SOLVING: These residents are limited in their ability to comprehend or retain information. They need education that is remedial and information that is repeated over and over. Repetition of the Factual Knowledge group may be helpful. Cognitive Remediation Therapy, Social Learning Program, and the NEAR program may be helpful for these residents. PSYCHOTIC/CONFUSED: These residents are poorly able to understand or communicate information because of disorganized thinking. They need treatment intervention for psychosis so it does not interfere with competency. They may not be able to benefit from attendance at groups; instead, they need referral to the psychiatrist. They may benefit from individual, rather than group, competency education. Conversely, the Social Learning Program may be helpful for these residents. EMOTIONALLY DYSREGULATED: These residents may display impulsive, uncontrollable or aggressive behavior that impedes learning, task completion, attention span, retaining information, or communicating. Alternatively they may be too anxious or depressed to effectively communicate or learn. They may benefit from adjunct therapies targeting emotion dysregulation, e.g. Dialectical Behavior Therapy.PSYCHOSOCIAL TREATMENT DELUSIONAL PARANOID INSUFFICIENT CONCENTRATION, ETC. PSYCHOTIC CONFUSED EMOTIONALLY DYSREGULATED MAINTE-NANCE CMS TARGET X X X X X DAILY GOALS X X X X X FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE X X X X RATIONAL UNDERSTANDING X X X X CONVERSATION SKILLS X X X SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT X X X X X MEDICATION MANAGEMENT X X X X PROBLEM SOLVING X X X COGNITIVE THERAPY PSYCHOSIS X ANGER MANAGEMENT X SOCIAL LEARNING PROGRAM X X X DBT X NEAR X Memory Skills X RELAPSE PREVENTION X X X X CLASSIFICATION OF ITP RESIDENT X PSYCHOSOCIAL TREATMENT ENTRY CRITERIA FOR RATIONAL UNDERSTANDING AND DECISION MAKING GROUP Adjudicated INCOMPETENT TO PROCEED. Evaluation case (not yet adjudicated) if team or evaluator OPINE INCOMPETENT. Graduate or tested out of FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE group. English speaking Estimated IQ>70. RULE/OUT CRITERIA Acute Psychosis or Mania Psychotic Aggression ITP residents clinicians opine likely PITP ITP or Evaluation Cases clinicians opine Competent Evaluation Cases not yet seen by Evaluator Passes Rational Understanding and Decision Making Test. EXIT CRITERIA Passes Rational Understanding and Decision Making Test. Opined Competent by evaluator or CourtPractical Issues: Rational Understanding and Decision Making Manual Organization: In contrast to the Manual for the Knowledge Competency Group, this manual does not provide a standardized session-by-session format. Instead, as per the request of psychologists, this manual provides a “menu of options,” facilitating tailoring of sessions to patient needs. Skills Application & Generalization: This manual emphasizes application of problem solving and other skills. To quote the Social Learning Program, the therapist role is to “do with,” not “do for.” Unless you plan to accompany your patients to jail and court, “do with,” not “for.” Thus the manual is organized according to: mock trials, vignettes, and skills. Session Frequency: Spaced practice is more effective than massed practice. Therefore to promote patient skills generalization, it is recommended that group sessions occur at least twice weekly (more is better). Weekly is unacceptable. Open vs. Closed Group: By necessity, this is an open group. After graduation from the Knowledge group, patients may enter the Rational Understanding and Decision Making Group at any time. Group Size: Given the cognitive deficits of most restoration patients, large group size is unacceptable. Please limit group size to 6 to 8. Homework: Please assign Homework at the end of every session. Please review Homework at the beginning of every session. Homework provides opportunities for skills generalization. Heterogeneous vs. Homogenous groups: Aim for homogeneity. Patients should be “competent-ish”: opined neither competent nor permanently incompetent. Clearly competent patients do not need to enroll in this group. Conversely, enrolling patients likely to be permanently incompetent is ineffective and potentially humiliating. Starting Sessions: Observe attendance. Seek out the missing. Always begin with homework review. Shape homework compliance. Fight avoidance. Structuring Sessions: Choose a vignette or mock trial and skill. If needed, teach skill. Ask patients to apply skill (SODAS and see Appendix E) to the vignette or mock trial. Role-play, role-play, and role-play. Fight avoidance. Ending Sessions: Assign homework. Assess understanding and commitment to homework. Work in Progress: We anticipate updating this manual yearly. Please forward revisions, new materials, and ideas to the Director of Psychology. Introduction COMPETENCY EDUCATION Goals of Competency Education To provide the resident with accurate and relevant information about the criminal justice system To set social and behavioral expectations for the resident’s cooperation and participation in the criminal justice system To foster positive and effective attorney-client relationships. To provide residents with a simulated court experience. To monitor progress in stabilization of the resident’s mental disorder To monitor progress in ability to understand the criminal justice system To ensure residents’ competency related skills generalize to the court environment. To assist the rest of the Service Team in narrowing the issues relevant to competency in each resident’s case Competency Education Sessions Staff will remind participants that a successful outcome for each session requires: Attention Concentration Group Cooperation Participation Factors that may limit the effectiveness Of competency education Staff may observe and document these or other characteristics of residents who are experiencing difficulty in the sessions: Impaired attention Impaired concentration Impaired goal-directed, logical thought Severe suspiciousness Guardedness Hostility Personal, unrealistic beliefs involving resident’s specific legal circumstances Section 1 Rational Understanding and Decision Making Skills Handout # 1 Situations for Decision Making Skills Application of Legal Ideas You pay attention and can describe the facts of different SITUATIONS. You weigh the ADVANTAGES and DISADVANTAGES of different pleas to different SITUATIONS. You evaluate the strength and weakness of different types of evidence to different SITUATIONS. You can consider likely penalties given different legal SITUATIONS. You know how to act in order for staff to opine you competent. You know the details of your particular case: charges, penalties, evidence against you, realistic SOLUTIONS Assisting and Cooperating with Your Attorney You can effectively tell your attorney your story. You can use skills to enhance your memory and attention. You can tell your attorney what she or he needs to know. You don’t tell them what they don’t need to know. You can work as a partner with your attorney. You can listen to your attorney, think about his/her ideas, weigh OPTIONS, and ask questions.When you disagree with your attorney you can negotiate. You care enough about yourself to defend yourself. You can use the SODAS skill with your attorney. You control your emotions. Your emotions do not control you. You understand your mental illness warning signs and persistent symptoms. You ask for help with your symptoms. Managing yourself in jail and court You can make a good impression in court. You can act calmly in court. You can testify relevantly. You can cope in jail. You can use SODAS and negotiate your medications in jail. Section 2 RATIONAL UNDERSTANDING AND DECISION MAKING SKILLS HANDOUT 2 Problem Solving A way to remember these skills is to remember the word “SODAS” (SITUATION, OPTIONS, DISADVANTAGES, ADVANTAGES, SOLUTIONS). Describe the SITUATION Generate OPTIONS Consider DISADVANTAGES Consider ADVANTAGES Choose a SOLUTION Describe the SITUATION. Just the facts. What is the problem? Who did what to whom? What was said? What led up to what? Do you have all the facts? Generate OPTIONS. Stop and think of different solutions. What are ALL the ways to solve this problem? What are your choices? Consider DISADVANTAGES Slow down. Troubleshoot. What can go wrong with each option? What are the cons? Consider ADVANTAGES Slow down. Troubleshoot. What can go right with each option? What are the pros? Choose a SOLUTION Which option has the most pros? The least cons? Other ideas: _____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________DECISION MAKING HOMEWORK SHEET 1 Problem Solving A way to remember these skills is to remember the word “SODAS” (SITUATION, OPTIONS, DISADVANTAGES, ADVANTAGES, SOLUTIONS). Name ______________________________________ Date ___________ Use this sheet to slow yourself down and figure out the problem. SITUATION: Just the facts. Who did what to whom? What is the problem? ________________________________________________________________ OPTIONS DISADVANTAGES/CONS ADVANTAGES/PROS ________________________________________________ SOLUTION: The OPTION with the most ADVANTAGES and least DISADVANTAGES: See Liberman Problem Solving Worksheet, steps 6 and 7: Appendix F 14-15 Section 3 Mock Trial #1: Jane Accused of Assault on a Police Officer Goal: The resident will “walk through” the legal process with the sample scenario. Objective: The residents will participate in a mock trial, by taking on a role in the courtroom with a sample case. Have each group member chose a role (Judge, defendant etc) and read that part of the role play script. Discussion Questions follow the role-plays Lesson: 1. The group leader will read the following situation about Jane (or John for men’s class) to the class. Jane has been accused of “assault on a peace officer”. She was in an argument with her husband, the police were called. When the police officers came to assess the situation, a police officer tried to calm her down. She was drunk at the time and started yelling at the police officer, then after feeling frustrated with him, she punched him. The police officer arrested her and took her to the county jail. 2. The group leader will have previously set up the classroom as a court would be set-up. Place the furniture in the form of a court. Have a chair and bench for judge in front of the court, defense and prosecution tables, a jury box, and an area for the audience. Also have a chair near the judge for witnesses, bailiff and/ or court reporter. Ask the class for volunteers for the following roles: judge, bailiff, state attorney, defendant, public defender, court reporter, police officer, witnesses, and jury members. Complex roles should be assigned to less impaired group members. STEPS IN MOCK TRIAL 1. JUDGE enters 2. BAILIFF calls the case 3. JUDGE court in session 4. PROSECUTOR OPENING STATEMENT: 5. PUBLIC DEFENDER OPENING STATEMENT: 6. PROSECUTOR CALLS WITNESSES: A. DIRECT EXAMINATION: B. CROSS EXAMINATION: 7. PUBLIC DEFENDER CALLS WITNESS: A. DIRECT EXAMINATION B. CROSS EXAMINATION 8. PROSECUTOR’S CLOSING STATEMENT: 9. PUBLIC DEFENDER’S CLOSING STATEMENT 10. JUDGE/JURY DECIDE ON A VERDICT 3. Read the following narrative, having discussion time for “role playing” where pauses” are indicated. Jane’s trial is about to take place. Everyone except the judge enters and sits in the courtroom. The bailiff arrives and asks everyone to “Please arise. Ladies and gentlemen the Honorable ________”. The judge walks in and allows everyone to be seated. (PAUSE) The bailiff announces the case “The State of Colorado vs. Jane Doe”. The judge calls court into session. (PAUSE) The defendant, Jane, sits with her public defender. She will let her attorney speak for her in court today because her public defender has studied law and knows best how to represent her. She will not speak out in court but will talk to her public defender quietly if she needs to say something. The public defender has spent time preparing Jane’s case, or gathering evidence and witnesses that will prove her innocence. The district attorney is representing “the State”. He/she is trying to convict Jane of the crime of “assault on a police officer”. The district attorney has to give facts (evidence, witnesses) that will prove she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The judge is preparing to hear Jane’s case too and has prepared the jury to consider only absolute facts to prove Jane’s guilt. The judge will remain in control of the courtroom during the trial and will make sure everyone is “playing by the rules”. The court reporter will type every word spoken in Jane’s trial. The trial is about to begin. The judge calls the prosecution first to give the opening statement, as to how he/she will prove Jane’s guilt. (PAUSE) The judge calls the public defender to give an opening statement, regarding how he/she is going to defend his/her client. (PAUSE) The prosecutor then presents his/her case, stating facts that prove that Jane is guilty of the crime. The prosecutor will call the police officer to the stand, and the bailiff will swear him/her in. The prosecutor will question the police officer and show any other evidence he/she has. (PAUSE) The defense cross-examines the police office, asking questions to discredit the police officer. (PAUSE) The public defender presents his/her case, stating reasons why Jane shouldn’t be found guilty She was harassed by the police officer and was defending herself. She/he brings Jane to the witness stand. (PAUSE) The public defender calls his/her client to the witness stand. (PAUSE) The prosecutor cross-examines. (PAUSE) Jane will be careful how to testify in court. She will not go on an on into too many details. She will answer questions to the point, directly. (PAUSE) Each side will give closing statements. (PAUSE) The jury will deliberate over the trial and come to a unanimous decision regarding Jane’s innocence or guilt. The evidence should prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jane is guilty of the crime she has been accused of committing. If they vote her “guilty” the jury can recommend a sentence but the judge always gives the sentence. (Her charges are a class 4 felony. If convicted the maximum time she could be given is 8 years in prison.) (PAUSE) The verdict will be read and the sentence given, if applicable, and the judge dismisses the court . (PAUSE) 4. The group leader makes and invites closing remarks on how the trial went and how it would compare to a real trial. Allow time for discussion. Section 4 Rational Decision-Making Vignettes Vignette 1: Steve Steve has been sending letters to Lori for almost four months. He writes that he loves her, but he also threatens to harm her if she does not love him back. After getting her phone number from friends, Steve starts calling Lori and hanging up. Steve also starts following Lori to restaurants and stores. Lori is afraid of Steve and was warned that he might hurt her, so she called the police and reported Steve’s actions. After talking to Steve, the police arrest him and charge him with Stalking. Questions: Even though Steve does not think he did anything wrong, his Public Defender tells him that he clearly broke the law and will be found Guilty if his case goes to trial. What are the facts? What led up to what? Were Steve’s actions inappropriate/wrong? What are all the ways Steve and his attorney can solve this problem (e.g. plead guilty, plead not guilty, plea bargain)? Is there a possibility that he would be convicted of Stalking? What evidence might make Steve appear Guilty? Note to Group Leader: Consider applying SODAS or other skills (see Appendix D) to this vignette. Vignette 2: Luke Luke has been feeling scared of his mother for months. He believes that she is possessed by the devil and will kill him tomorrow as a sacrifice. That night, Luke gets his brother’s gun and shoots his mother while she is sleeping. She screams, runs to the kitchen, and calls the police. The police come and take her to the hospital where she recovers. Luke is charged with attempted murder. Questions: What things should Luke tell his Public Defender that are important to his case? What things should he tell about how he was thinking and feeling? The Prosecutor offers Luke a deal (Plea Bargain) of 5 years in prison if he pleads Guilty to 2nd Degree Assault (attacking a person with the intent to do serious bodily injury). What if the Prosecutor offers a plea bargain for an NGRI? Should Luke take the deal even if it means he will go to a forensic hospital (like CMHIP) for several years, on average eight years, and maybe longer? To be found Guilty of Attempted Murder what does the Prosecutor have to prove? To have him found NGRI what does Luke’s Public Defender have to prove? Note to Group Leader: Consider applying SODAS or other skills (see Appendix D) to this vignette. Vignette 3: Bob Bob was arrested and charged with 3rd Degree Assault on a Peace Officer after he hit a police officer that stopped him on the street. There were two other people (witnesses) who saw Bob hit the police officer. The officer had a cut on his chin after being hit, and Bob’s knuckles were bruised. The worst penalty Bob can get if he is found guilty is 4 years in jail. The District Attorney (Prosecutor) offers a deal (plea bargain) where Bob would have to spend 4 months in jail and then be on Probation for one year. Questions: Does the State have a strong case against Bob? What evidence can be used to prove Bob guilty? Would you accept the plea-bargain if you were Bob? Would you plead Not Guilty and take the case to trial if you were Bob? Why or why not? Note to Group Leader: Consider applying SODAS or other skills (see Appendix D) to this vignette. Vignette 4: Tom The police came to Tom’s house because neighbors complained that he was playing his music too loud. When the police got to his house they asked if they could come inside. Tom said, “Yes”. In the living room, police spotted a crack pipe and an empty bag on the table. The police arrested Tom for Possession of Drug Paraphernalia and Possession of Cocaine. Tom told the Police that the stuff was not his. Questions: Does the State (Prosecution) have a strong case against Tom on the Possession of Drug Paraphernalia charge? What about the Cocaine Possession charge? How might you plead (i.e., Guilty, Not Guilty, No Contest, Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity) on these charges? If Tom was under the influence of drugs/high when he got arrested, could he plead NGRI to the charges and win? Note to Group Leader: Consider applying SODAS or other skills (see Appendix D) to this vignette. Vignette 5: Dave Dave is arrested by police on Sunday morning and is charged with Aggravated Motor Vehicle Theft. The police say that Dave stole a car from a gas station Saturday night (the previous night) and crashed it into a telephone pole two miles from his house. The police found Dave’s fingerprints on the car door and were able to track him down because he has a criminal record and a past charge for Aggravated Motor Vehicle Theft. Dave tells police that he was home alone all night on Saturday, but Dave’s neighbor told police that he saw Dave running up to his house at 2:00 a.m., one hour after the car was reported stolen. Dave claims that the police are always messing with him, trying to frame him, and that they are involved in a conspiracy to put him behind bars. Dave’s neighbor is a 65-year-old retired store clerk. He is not an enemy of Dave’s and has no bad feelings toward him. Questions: What evidence does the state have against Dave? Who would be a more believable witness, Dave or his neighbor (neighbor does not have a criminal record)? What if the neighbor had been a 23-year-old with a long criminal record who had conflicts with Dave in the past? The worst penalty Dave could get is 6 years if he is found Guilty. Should he consider a plea bargain offer of three years in prison? Why or why not? What if Dave had five past convictions for Car Theft? If Dave’s case goes to trial, how likely is he to win (be found Not Guilty) by claiming that he was framed? Why do you think Dave is accusing the police of framing/conspiring against him? Note to Group Leader: Consider applying SODAS or other skills (see Appendix D) to this vignette. Section 5 MOCK TRIAL #2: Did Henry steal the Ford Pickup? Goal: The resident will “walk through” the legal process with the sample scenario. Objective: The residents will participate in a mock trial, by taking on a role in the courtroom with a sample case. Place the furniture in the form of a court. Have a chair and bench for judge in front of the court, defense and prosecution tables, a jury box, and an area for the audience. Also have a chair near the judge for witnesses, bailiff and/ or court reporter. Have each group member chose a role (Judge, defendant etc) and read that part of the role play script. Discussion Questions follow the role-plays STEPS IN MOCK TRIAL 1. JUDGE enters 2. BAILIFF calls the case 3. JUDGE court in session 4. PROSECUTOR OPENING STATEMENT: 5. PUBLIC DEFENDER OPENING STATEMENT: 6. PROSECUTOR CALLS WITNESSES: A. DIRECT EXAMINATION: B. CROSS EXAMINATION: 7. PUBLIC DEFENDER CALLS WITNESS: A. DIRECT EXAMINATION B. CROSS EXAMINATION 8. PROSECUTOR’S CLOSING STATEMENT: 9. PUBLIC DEFENDER’S CLOSING STATEMENT 10. JUDGE/JURY DECIDE ON A VERDICT MOCK TRIAL STATE VS. HENRY JACKSON On November 2, 1991 at approximately 2:00 p.m., Mr. Henry Jackson test-drove a 1988 Ford Pick-up at Blue’s Auto Sales. Mr. Joseph Blue owner of Blue’s Auto Sales and Mr. Jackson could not come to terms on the 1988 Ford Pick-up, and the two exchanged words, Mr. Blue states that Mr. Jackson called him a ‘rip-off’ and told him that he could get the 1988 Ford pick-up if he really wanted it. On November 2, 1991 at 9:00 p.m., Mr. Blue made a trip back to his business to check on things as he usually does. When Mr. Blue arrived, he noticed one of his vehicles missing from his car lot and it was the same 1988 Ford pick-up that Mr. Jackson test-drove earlier that day. He then called the police to report the incident. The prosecution states that Mr. Henry Jackson is guilty of Aggravated Motor Vehicle Theft and the evidence against him makes it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. The defense states that they have witnesses as to Mr. Jackson’s whereabouts between the hours of 6:00-9:00 p.m., the time the truck went missing from Blue’s Auto Sales. Mr. Jackson does not deny the comments he made to Mr. Blue but states he did not steal the truck. JUDGE: Prosecution, you may go ahead with your opening statement. PROSECUTION OPENING STATEMENT On the afternoon of November 2, 1991, Mr. Henry Jackson did come to Blue’s Auto Sales and he did test drive a 1988 Ford pick-up truck. Mr. Blue made Mr. Jackson a reasonable offer after negotiating on the price for approximately fifteen minutes. Mr. Jackson was in no way reasonable and told Mr. Blue that he was a “rip-off” and that he could get the truck if he really wanted it. We will prove that Mr. Jackson had no intentions of buying the truck and test-driving it was just part of his plan to steal the truck later that night. JUDGE: Defense you may give your opening statement. DEFENSE OPENING STATEMENT It is true that Mr. Jackson did in fact test drive a 1988 Ford pick-up truck at Blue’s Auto Sales. Mr. Jackson had good intentions to buy the truck but Mr. Blue’s price on the 1988 Ford truck was too high. Mr. Jackson does not own a vehicle at this time but recently acquired a part time job to buy a vehicle. The defendant Mr. Jackson was upset when he and Mr. Blue could not make a deal and he does not deny the comments he made to Mr. Blue, but the defendant has witnesses as to his whereabouts at the alleged time the truck was stolen. Mr. Jackson did not steal the truck and he should not be convicted of a crime he did not commit. JUDGE: Prosecution calls your first witness please. PROSECUTOR: I call Joe Blue to the stand. BAILIFF: Raise your right hand and state your name. WITNESS: Joseph B. Blue BAILIFF: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? WITNESS: I do. BAILIFF: You may be seated. DIRECT EXAMINATION PROSECUTOR: State your name please? Joseph B. Blue Q. How old are you Mr. Blue? A. I am 56. Q. What do you do for a living? A. I own a car sales dealership. Q. What is the name of your dealership? A. Blue’s Auto Sales. Q. How long have you been in business for yourself? A. For almost 15 years. Q. What did you do before you went into business for yourself? A. I was a car salesman for Henry’s Chevrolet. Q. Why did you leave Henry’s Chevrolet? A. It was my dream to own my own business; I had saved up some money so I pursued my dream. Q. In other words, you have been in car sales since you started working? A. Yes, that is right. Q. Have you ever had any trouble dealing with potential buyers prior to November 2, 1991? A. No, I have not. Q. Could you describe to the court, the incident between you and Mr. Henry Jackson on November 2, 1991? A. Well, I noticed Mr. Jackson looking at a 1988 Ford pick-up on the lot and I walked up to him and asked him if he would like to test drive it. He said that he had just got a job and was interested in buying, and we took it for a test drive. When we got back, we talked price on the truck. I came down $2,000 off the original price and told him that was as low as I could go. Mr. Jackson then exploded, “you are a rip-off and the whole town will know it”. As he was walking off the lot he made this comment, “I can get that truck if I want it”, and he left. Q. Is there any doubt in your mind that Mr. Jackson returned later that night and stole the 1988 Ford pick-up truck? PUBLIC DEFENDER: Objection your Honor! He is leading the witness. JUDGE: Sustained. Do you Mr. Blue, have any doubt that Mr. Jackson stole the truck later that night. No, there is not. PROSECUTOR: Thank you Mr. Blue. I have no further questions. JUDGE: You may cross-examine. CROSS EXAMINATION PUBLIC DEFENDER: Q. Mr. Blue, you said you have been in car sales for a good part of your life? A. Yes, that is correct. Q. You also stated that you have never had trouble dealing with potential buyers prior to November 2, 1991, correct? A. Yes, that is correct. Q. Mr. Blue, you mean to tell me that you have never had an angry customer call you names or make simple threats towards you? A. No, I cannot say that. Q. Well, you told the court that you had never had any trouble with potential buyers prior to November 2, 1991. Let me ask you; is it unusual for an angry customer to make remarks such as the ones Mr. Jackson made to you on that day? A. No, but. Q. No buts, Mr. Blue! Just answer the question yes or no. A. No. PUBLIC DEFENDER: Thank you Mr. Blue, I have no further questions. JUDGE: Does that conclude the evidence from Mr. Blue? PUBLIC DEFENDER: It does your Honor. JUDGE: You may step down Mr. Blue. You may proceed with your next witness. PROSECUTOR: I call, Mrs. Mary May to the stand. BAILIFF: Raise your right hand and state your name. WITNESS: Mary M. May BAILIFF: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? WITNESS: I do. BAILIFF: You may be seated. PROSECUTOR: What do you do for a living Mrs. May? I sell cars for Mr. Joe Blue. How long have you been working for Mr. Blue? For about 8 years. So you know Mr. Blue pretty well? Yes, I consider Mr. Blue a good friend as well as my boss. So could you tell the court, what kind of a personality Mr. Blue has? Mr. Blue is one of the most Friendliest People I know, he gets along well with his customers and I have never heard him say a harsh word to anyone. Were you working the day Mr. Henry Jackson came to Blue’s Auto Sales? Yes, I was. Did you overhear the conversation between Mr. Blue and Mr. Jackson? Yes, I did. Well Mrs. May could you tell the court what you heard? Well, Mr. Blue and Mr. Jackson talked for about fifteen minutes after they arrived back from test-driving the truck. Mr. Blue was describing the features on the truck etc. and Mr. Jackson said, “let’s talk price”. Mr. Blue and Mr. Jackson negotiated for about 10 minutes and Mr. Blue said, “this is as low as I can go”. Mr. Jackson really seemed to be upset and called Mr. Blue a rip-off. He also stated that he could get the truck if he wanted it and he left. Have you ever seen anyone react this way during your car sales experience? No, I have not. Did it appear to you that Mr. Jackson would go to any length to get that truck? Yes it did. PROSECUTOR: Thank you, that’s all. Your witness. CROSS EXAMINATION PUBLIC DEFENDER: Mrs. May, you told the court that you have never seen anyone upset after not coming to terms with a car salesman, right? Yes. You can honestly say that you have never seen anyone upset, Mrs. May? Well, I guess I should clarify myself. I have never seen anyone as upset as Mr. Jackson was that day. Mrs. May, would you say that the final offer Mr. Blue made to Mr. Jackson was reasonable, or was it still a little high? The offer was reasonable; however Mr. Blue was going to make some money off the car. That is what he is in business to do. I understand Mr. Blue is trying to make a living, but he also has a reputation of taking advantage of his customers. What would you say to this Mrs. May? I have been working for Mr. Blue for about 8 years, and sure there have been unsatisfied customers, but Mr. Blue is just trying to make a living just like anyone else in business. Is it possible that Mr. Blue’s offer to Mr. Jackson was a little high and Mr. Jackson may have been insulted by his final offer? Yes, I guess it is possible. And this would explain Mr. Jackson’s behavior on the day of November 2, 1991? Yes, I guess it may. So Mr. Blue made an insulting offer to Mr. Jackson, he then became angry and made a few comments he should not have made. Does this prove that Mr. Jackson is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? No. PUBLIC DEFENDER: Thank you, Mrs. May. I have no further questions. JUDGE: Mrs. May you may step down. Does that conclude the evidence from Mrs. May? PUBLIC DEFENDER: It does your Honor. JUDGE: Does that conclude the testimony from Mr. Blue’s side? PROSECUTOR: Yes, it does your Honor. JUDGE: We will recess until 8:30 a.m. tomorrow morning. WHEN COURT RESUMES, THE BAILIFF WILL CALL IT TO ORDER AGAIN. JUDGE: You may proceed with evidence from Mr. Jackson’s side. PUBLIC DEFENDER: Thank you. The defense calls Mike Jackson to the stand. BAILIFF: Please raise you right hand and state your name. WITNESS: Michael Jackson BAILIFF: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? WITNESS: I do. BAILIFF: You may be seated. DIRECT EXAMINATION PUBLIC DEFENDER: Will you state your name to the court? Michael K. Jackson. How old are you Mr. Jackson? I am 22 years old. Could you tell the court in detail what you were doing between the hours of 6:00-9:00 p.m. on November 2, 1991? Yes sir, about 5:30 p.m., I along with several other friends including Henry Jackson went down to the city park to shoot basketball. We played for about 2 hours and then we went to a friend’s house to get something to eat and drink. We played cards after we ate until about 11:00 p.m. and then we all went home. Was Mr. Henry Jackson with the group the entire evening? Yes he was. Q. What do you think about the allegations against Mr. Jackson? A. They are impossible because he was with me the entire evening and there is no way he could have stolen that truck. PUBLIC DEFENDER: Thank you Mr. Jackson that is all I have. JUDGE: You may cross-examine. CROSS EXAMINATION PROSECUTOR: You stated that your name was Michael K. Jackson correct? Yes I did. Is there any relation between you and the defendant Henry Jackson? Yes sir, we are brothers. Do the two of you live in the same house? No sir, I live at home with my parents and Henry lives on his own. You told the court that after playing basketball for a couple of hours that you and your friends went to another friend’s house until 11:00 p.m. correct? Yes sir, we did. Was there any time during this period that the two of you were separated? No sir, not that I can remember. Not that you can remember! Was there any drinking going on at your friend’s house? Yes, we did drink a little. So, you, your brother and your friends were drinking right? Yes. So, it is possible that you and your brother Henry may have been separated because you were all drinking and were not in the right state of mind to know if someone had left correct? We were drinking, but we were not drunk. I was not separated from my brother. I will ask you again Mr. Jackson, was there any drinking going on in the house the night of November 2, 1991? Yes. PROSECUTOR: No further questions, your Honor. JUDGE: Does that conclude the evidence from Michael Jackson? PUBLIC DEFENDER: Yes, you Honor. JUDGE: Mr. Jackson you may step down. You may call your next witness. PUBLIC DEFENDER: I call Henry Jackson to the stand. BAILIFF: Raise your right hand and state your name. WITNESS: Henry L. Jackson. BAILIFF: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? WITNESS: I do. BAILIFF: You may be seated. DIRECT EXAMINATION PUBLIC DEFENDER: State your name to the court. Henry L. Jackson How old are you Mr. Jackson? I am 25. Do you have a job Mr. Jackson? I work part-time at McDonalds. You recently acquired the job and you wanted to buy a vehicle correct? Yes sir. You went to Blue’s Auto Sales and test-drove a 1988 Ford pick-up, correct? Yes sir. Mr. Jackson could you tell the court about the incident between you and Mr. Blue after test-driving the truck? Well, I test drove the truck and when we got back to the car lot I asked Mr. Blue how much he wanted for the truck. He said that the price was listed on the truck. Does Mr. Blue have the prices listed on the vehicles? No, he does not. Proceed with telling the court about the incident between you and Mr. Blue. Well, we talked price and we could not make a deal. I got frustrated and told him he was a rip-off and that I could get that truck if I really wanted it. Did Mr. Blue provoke you to make these comments? Well, he insulted me. He was trying to make a killing off me buying the truck. Your brother testified that you were with him and other friends on November 2, 1991, from 5:00-11:00 p.m.? Yes, I was. Mr. Jackson, I am going to ask you straight forward, did you steal the 1988 Ford pick-up truck from Blue’s Auto Sales? No, I have never stolen anything in my life! PUBLIC DEFENDER: That’s all I have, thank you Mr. Jackson. JUDGE: You may cross-examine. CROSS EXAMINATION PROSECUTOR: Mr. Jackson, will you clarify to the court what you mean when you say that Mr. Blue insulted you? He acted like I was stupid and that I knew nothing about the price of cars. Mr. Jackson, what do you say about the truck being stolen the same day you had test driven it? I don’t know how to explain it, but I didn’t do it. It must have been a coincidence. Mr. Jackson, your brother has stated that the two of you were drinking with your friends. Were you drinking? Yes, I was. PUBLIC DEFENDER: Objection your Honor, the prosecutor is intimidating the witness. JUDGE: Sustained. You know the rules of the court Mr. Williams. Mr. Jackson, when people drink they often do thing that they don’t remember. You were drinking and you may have stolen the truck and didn’t even know it, considering the state of mind you were in. Your brother has testified on your behalf, but he was in the same condition you were in. How is the court supposed to believe your testimony knowing these facts? I have no explanation for that, but I know that I am not guilty. PROSECUTOR: No further questions your Honor. The prosecution rests. DEFENSE LAWYER: The defense rests. JUDGE: Prosecution you may go ahead with your closing statement. PROSECUTION CLOSING STATEMENT I have to question the defense testimony, both Mr. Henry Jackson, the Defendant, and Mr. Michael Jackson, the defenses’ witness were in a drunken state of mind on the night of November 2, 1991. Sure, Michael has testified that he was with Henry the entire night but they were both drunk and may not be absolutely sure of what they were doing. Mr. Henry Jackson had no intentions of buying a new truck and test-driving it was only part of the plan to steal the truck later that night. Mr. Henry Jackson is guilty of Aggravated Motor Vehicle Theft and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. JUDGE: The defense may give its’ closing statement. DEFENSE CLOSING STATEMENT The defendant Mr. Henry Jackson does not deny the comments he made to Mr. Blue. In fact, Mr. Blue provoked the comments by insulting Mr. Jackson’s intelligence about automobiles. It is not unusual for customers to become angry and make comments like these, but in no way does this indicate that Mr. Jackson stole the truck. These comments are the only evidence the prosecution has to go on and it is not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Jackson stole the truck. The defendant has witnesses as to his whereabouts at the time of the alleged crime. Mr. Jackson was across town with friends. Remember jury, to convict someone the evidence must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. The defendant is not guilty and should not be convicted of a crime that he did not commit. JUDGE: Jury, you have heard conflicting testimony from both sides. It is your duty as a jury to find the facts and apply the law. You will now return to the jury room and decide on a verdict. This court is recessed. APPENDIX A ADDITIONAL ROLE PLAYS & MOCK TRIALS Steps in a Criminal Mock Trial Basic Procedure--Patient Handout 1. Pre-Trial preparation of information gathering from different sources. 2. Courtroom Participants: Judge, attorneys, witnesses, jurors, plaintiff, defendant, and a bailiff. 3. Beginning the Trial, Bailiff Announcement: “All rise. The Court of Pueblo is now in session; the Honorable Judge ‘ ‘ is presiding.” Everyone remains standing until the judge enters and takes the bench. The judge asks the bailiff to call the day’s calendar and the bailiff says, “Your Honor, today’s case is ________________vs.____________.” The judge asks the attorneys for each side if they are ready to begin the trial. 4. The Trial. Each attorney introduces himself: “May it please the court and Members of the jury, my name is _______, counsel for _______in this action.” 5. Attorneys for the plaintiff (first) and the defense (second) deliver their opening statements prepared from studying the facts of the case. 6. Plaintiff calls each witness until finished calling witnesses and conducts direct examination for each one. 7. Defense cross-examines the witnesses called by the plaintiff. 8. The defense may begin calling witnesses after the plaintiff rests the case. Plaintiff’s attorney may cross-examine witnesses called by the defense before each steps down. 9. Defense rests. Preparation of closing arguments. 10. Closing arguments in a criminal trial: Plaintiff’s attorney first, then defense. 11. Jury’s verdict. This verdict must be unanimous in a criminal trial. 12. The sentence. The judge decides the punishment: jail, money, and/or time of volunteer service. Pleas The following two role-plays can be acted out in group in order to help group members better understand the pleas available to them. Have each group member chose a role (Judge, defendant etc) and read that part of the role play script. Discussion Questions follow the role-plays. The first role-play describes a plea of guilty with a plea bargain. The second role-play is entering a plea of not guilty.  PLEA OF GUILTY WITH A PLEA BARGAIN: People vs. Boot JUDGE: Call the case. CLERK: This is case number 07CR 555, People of the State of Colorado versus Mr. Boot. The charges are Theft and Attempted Kidnapping. JUDGE: Mr. District Attorney, please begin. DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Your honor, counsel have conferred on this matter, and we understand that the Defendant is ready to plead guilty to the charge of Theft. We are willing to drop the charge of Attempted Kidnapping. JUDGE: Is this correct Mr. Defense Counsel? DEFENSE COUNSEL: Yes, your honor. JUDGE: Mr. Boot, the charge against you is Theft. How do you plead? DEFENDANT: I plead guilty – your honor JUDGE: Mr. Boot - have you discussed this with your attorney? DEFENDANT: Yes I have Your Honor. JUDGE: Do you enter this plea of your own free will, without being coerced or forced to do so? DEFENDANT: Yes, I do your Honor. JUDGE: Do you further understand that in entering this guilty plea you will be giving up any right to appeal? DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. JUDGE: All right, the plea of guilty is accepted to the charge of Theft. Sentencing is set for Month*, Day*, Year*, at 10:00 a.m. *= make up a date Discussion after this role-play should include: What is a plea bargain? What plea do you have to enter to take a plea bargain? What rights do you give up if you accept a plea bargain? Do you have to take a plea bargain if one is offered to you? What does it mean when the judge asks you if you are doing this without being coerced or forced to do so? PLEA OF NOT GUILTY: People vs. Doe JUDGE: Call the case. CLERK: This is case number 07 CR 556, People of the State of Colorado versus Mr. Doe. The charges are Aggravated Theft and Attempted Kidnapping. JUDGE: Ms. Defense Attorney, is your client ready to enter a plea? DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes he is, your Honor JUDGE: Mr. Doe, the charges against you are Aggravated Theft and Attempted Kidnapping. How do you plead? DEFENDANT: Not guilty, Your Honor. JUDGE: All right, a plea of Not Guilty is entered. DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Your honor, my client would like to waive her right to a jury trial and request her case be decided by the court. JUDGE: Mr. Doe, you understand that in waiving your right to a jury trial, the court will hear your case and your guilt or innocence decided by the judge? DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor, I understand that. JUDGE: And this is your preference? DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. JUDGE: All right, the court will hear this case on *Month, Day*, Year, At 9:30 a.m. Court is adjourned. *= make up date Discussion Questions should include: 1. What does a plea of not guilty mean? (If the participant states that it means that you say that you did not commit the crime- make sure they understand you can plead not guilty even if you did commit a crime and discuss this issue). 2. What legal right is being exercised in this scenario? (the right to have trial by judge or trial by jury) 3. Who gets to decide whether you have a trial by judge or jury? (you- the defendant- with input form your lawyer) 4. What happens after you enter a plea of not guilty? How is this different than what happens to you after you enter a plea of guilty? (Not guilty = will have trial, if plead guilty you give up your right to trial and go directly to sentencing; you also give up your right to appeal if you plead guilty because there is no trial to appeal)Mock Trial: 2nd Degree Assault Case: People vs. Smith Group leaders and members will participate in a mock trial. Group members will play the role of courtroom personnel and witnesses. Group leaders should assume the role of the defendant, if possible. The attached role-play may be used for the mock trial or leaders can create scenarios from which the participants choose to play out as their case. Place the furniture in the form of a court. Have a chair and bench for judge in front of the court, defense and prosecution tables, a jury box, and an area for the audience. Also have a chair near the judge for witnesses, bailiff and/ or court reporter. ROLE PLAY- 2nd Degree Assault Julie Smith has been charged with 2nd Degree Assault. Julie is accused of battering her neighbor, James Williams, with a baseball bat. Ms. Smith reports she was defending herself at the time. Mr. Williams had asked Ms. Smith on several occasions to keep her music turned down and to keep her friends from parking on his lawn. Ms. Smith is a musician and reported she practiced at home and that her music was not too loud. Mr. Williams and Ms. Smith had several arguments over the past six months regarding this issue. 2nd Degree Assault: 16 years maximum sentence. Must have hurt someone using a weapon with the intent of hurting the person. Witness #1- Ms. Cravitz: the next-door neighbor who had witnessed several arguments between Ms. Smith and Mr. Williams. She had heard Mr. Williams threaten to call the police and cut the electricity cords to Ms. Smith’s stereo equipment. She had also heard Ms. Smith threaten to vandalize Mr. Williams house if he did anything to her. Witness #2- Mr. Belvedere: another neighbor who actually saw Ms. Smith and Mr. Williams arguing on the day of the incident. Mr. Williams was hollering at Ms. Smith about her stereo and a rut in his yard. Ms. Smith was carrying a baseball bat and hollering back at Mr. Williams . Mr. Belvedere did not actually see Ms. Smith hit Mr. Williams, but he did see Mr. Williams run from Ms. Smith’s house bleeding and holding his head. He also saw Ms. Smith come out of her house and phone an ambulance. Victim- Mr. Williams: the alleged victim claims Ms. Smith became so angry at him that she hit him in the head with the baseball bat causing him to receive treatment at the local hospital. He received 3 stitches and was diagnosed with a mild concussion. Defendant- Ms. Smith: the alleged perpetrator said that Mr. Williams was very upset and had threatened to hurt her if she did not stop playing her music. She said when he walked towards her she thought he was going to hurt her so she hit him with the bat. She said she was defending herself. Courtroom: JUDGE: Call the case CLERK: This is case Number 07 CR-553, People of the State of Colorado versus Julie Smith. The charge is 2nd Degree Assault. JUDGE: Ms. Defense Attorney. Is your client ready to plead? DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes Your honor. JUDGE: Ms. Smith the charge against you is 2nd Degree Assault. How do you plead? DEFENDANT: Not Guilty - Your honor JUDGE: All right- A plea of Not Guilty is entered. Ms. District Attorney are you ready to begin with opening statements? DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Yes, Your honor. ***** give opening statement****** JUDGE: Ms. Defense Attorney are you ready to give your opening statement? DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, your honor. **** give opening statement**** JUDGE: Ms. District Attorney please call your first witness. DISTRICT ATTORNEY: We call Ms. Cravitz. CLERK: ***Swear in witness**** DISTRICT ATTORNEY: ***** Examine the witness**** JUDGE: Ms. Defense Attorney would you like to cross-examine the witness? DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, Your honor. ******Cross examine the witness**** JUDGE: Ms. Cravitz- you may step down. Ms. District Attorney call your next witness. DISTRICT ATTORNEY: We call Mr. Belvedere to the stand. CLERK: ***Swear in the witness**** DISTRICT ATTORNEY: **** Examine Mr. Belvedere**** JUDGE: Ms. Defense attorney- would you like to cross examine the witness? DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, your honor. ****Cross Examine witness**** JUDGE: Mr. Belvedere you are dismissed. Ms. District attorney call your next witness. DISTRICT ATTORNEY: We call Mr. Williams to the stand. CLERK: *****Swear in Mr. Williams.***** DISTRICT ATTORNEY: **** Examine witness***** JUDGE: Ms. Defense attorney- would you like to cross-examine the witness? DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, Your honor. **** Cross examine Mr. Williams***** JUDGE: Mr. Williams you may step down. Ms. District Attorney you may call your next witness. DISTRICT ATTORNEY: The prosecution rests, your honor. JUDGE: Ms. Defense Attorney cal you first witness. DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The defense calls Ms. Julie Smith. CLERK: *****Swear in Ms. Smith***** DEFENSE ATTORNEY: ******Examine witness****** JUDGE: Ms. District Attorney, do you wish to cross-examine the witness. DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Yes, your honor. *** cross-examine the witness***** JUDGE: Ms. Defense Attorney, call your next witness. DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The defense rests your honor. JUDGE: Ms. District Attorney, please give your closing statements. DISTRICT ATTORNEY: *****closing statement***** JUDGE: Ms. Defense Attorney please give your closing statement. DEFENSE STATEMENT: *****closing Statement ****** JUDGE: Members of the Jury you have heard testimony from each side. Your job is to now take the information you learned and make a decision about a verdict. In order to find the defendant guilty you must first find- BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT- that the defendant committed 2nd Degree Assault. JURY: ***debate case- decide on verdict**** JUDGE: Members of the Jury have you reached a verdict? JURY FOREPERSON: Yes, Your honor We have JUDGE: Please read your decision. JURY FOREPERSON: In the matter of the People vs. Julie Smith we the members of the Jury find the defendant  of the charge of 2nd Degree Assault. APPENDIX B ADDITIONAL VIGNETTES DNA Mr. Smith is charged with robbery and slaying of a 19-year-old a clerk at a 7-Eleven store. At the scene of the crime, detectives recovered fingerprints on the store's cash register, and the store's surveillance camera captured an image during the robbery. The video shows a person firing at the clerk as he opens the cash register. In addition, the police obtained information from a witness that seemed to fit the physical description of Mr. Smith. The detectives also collected DNA samples at the scene of the crime. Detectives believe that the DNA and other evidence will link Mr. Smith to the slaying. The Assistant District Attorney feels confident that she has enough evidence to convict. At the initial arraignment, Mr. Smith is appointed a public defender. Mr. Smith's attorney has seen all the evidence against his client. Mr. Smith later meets with his attorney and admits that he was at the 7-Eleven store the day of the murder. His attorney made the following observations of his client: Mr. Smith appeared to understand the charges, relevant facts, the possible penalty, and was cooperative. Despite displaying adequate knowledge of his case, Mr. Smith seemed to have lower general intelligence and has a history of substance abuse. The Assistant District Attorney offered a deal that if Mr. Smith would plea guilty, he could get life without parole in exchange to avoid a death penalty trial. Discussion 1. What is the evidence? 2. What type of “story” did Mr. Smith tell his attorney (confession, complete denial, or admit and explain)? 3. Do you think that Mr. Smith is competent to proceed? Why or Why not? 4. Is Mr. Smith guilty? 5. Does the plea agreement seem fair? On your own On the opposite side of the paper, write down what you think Mr. Smith should do and explain your answer. What will be the outcome of this case?More Vignettes Judy has been accused of domestic violence against her husband. She and her husband Dick were in an argument late at night and woke up Mr. Green the neighbor. Mr. Green called the police and said that he heard people screaming next door. When the police arrived the argument was over and both Dick and Judy would not talk to the police about what happened. The police said that because someone called 911, then someone was going to go to jail. Judy and Dick decided that it would be Judy that went to jail, as Dick had to go to work early the next day. Juan has been charged with possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute. Juan was born in Brownsville TX of Mexican parents but does not speak English very well. He was visiting his cousin Raul and doing day labor while trying to get a steady job. Juan did not know it but the police suspected Raul as a person who sells drugs. Juan was staying at Raul’s house and was sleeping on the sofa after a hard day digging ditches. The police came into the house late at night with a warrant and searched the house. The police found lots of drugs under the sofa that Juan was sleeping on. There were no Spanish-speaking officers at the time of the arrest. Juan was arrested for possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute because the drugs were packaged in small baggies. Jim Bob has been charged with sexual assault of a child. Jim Bob was released from DOC last year and is on Parole from a conviction for sexual assault of a child and is required to report his address to the police. Jim Bob works as a long distance trucker and goes off for seven days at a time. While he is at work he lives in his truck. He is then at his apartment for seven days before he goes back out for another seven days. Jim Bob’s roommate has the key to Jim Bob’s pickup truck and uses it while Jim Bob is way at work. Jim Bob’s pickup truck is a purple 1957 Studebaker. The sexual assault victim is 4 yrs old and was not able to identify her attacker as it happened at night. A witness, Mr. Nice says that he saw an old Studebaker pick up truck driving quickly away from the scene of the assault. Mr. Nice did not get a good look at the driver but thought that it was a man. Mr. Nice could not see the color of the truck but did notice that it was dark. The victim lives 3 blocks from Jim Bob. Linda Lou is charged with Aggravated Motor Vehicle Theft from ABC Construction Company. Linda and her boyfriend were living in a motel while he was working for ABC Construction Company. Linda’s boyfriend had permission to use the construction company truck. Linda and her boyfriend got into an argument and he threw the keys at her, called her dirty names and told her to go to hell. She picked up the keys and drove the truck to the bus station where she boarded a bus to her Mother’s home in Abilene. Linda left the truck keys in an empty beer can in the bed of the truck. When she got off the bus in Abilene she was arrested by Texas Rangers and extradited back to Colorado. Linda’s boyfriend had told the police that she had taken the keys from him while he was sleeping. Linda has been arrested 9 times for prostitution, 7 times for possession of Marijuana and twice for possession of Meth. She also has an extensive record as a juvenile that includes three shoplifting charges. Understanding Pleas Before these activities are completed in-group the leader needs to discuss with the group the pleas available to an individual and discuss the meaning of each plea. Also, discuss with the group what happens after each plea is entered. After a thorough discussion of the possible pleas the following group activities can be completed. During each of these activities look not only for factual understanding of the pleas, but also, more importantly, assess the ability to think critically and make a rational decision about a plea. Prior to group, the leader must photocopy each vignette listed below on a slip of paper. Group members will draw slips of paper each describing a situation. They must decide, based on the situation if they will plead guilty, not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity, or consider a plea bargain. Situation #1: You are in a store and decide that you are going to steal a music CD. You put the CD in your jacket pocket. An employee saw you do this, and you were also caught on the store’s security camera. The police arrest you for shoplifting. When you go to court, how would you plead? Situation #2: A friend of yours shot at someone on the street and has been arrested. Your friend tells the police that you did it, even though you weren’t even there. The police believe him and arrest you. When you go to court, how would you plead? Situation #3: You went into an unused building and stole some old video equipment. You are arrested and charged with burglary. Should you plead guilty, not guilty, or ask about if you can make a plea bargain for a less serious charge (such as trespassing)? Situation #4 You were arrested for trespassing and assault after you entered a neighbor’s house and hit the neighbor with your fists several times. You have, in the past, been diagnosed with a mental disorder and at the time of the crime were not thinking clearly. What plea(s) should you consider? Decisional Capacity: Case of Rob All individuals facing charges must be capable of participating in their own defense. This includes making decisions related to their case and working with their attorney. The following is an exercise created to assess and develop decisional competence. GROUP EXERCISE The following exercise is focused on one’s decisional capacity (idea taken from the MacArthur Competence Assessment- Criminal Adjudication, 1999) Please read this statement to participants to explain the reason for today’s exercise: In order to adequately defend oneself against any type of charge you must have the ability to make decisions related to your case. Such decisions may include working with your lawyer to decide on the best defense or what type of information should be relayed in court, or making a decision about whether to accept a plea bargain, if one is offered. Please Read the Following Scenario to the participants: Rob works as a delivery person for a warehouse. He is upset because his boss has laid him off without a valid reason. Rob breaks into the warehouse and steals merchandise. Please read the following statement to the participants: Let’s pretend Rob is charged with the crimes of 2nd Degree Burglary and Theft of $500 to $15,000. Rob is appointed an attorney. Rob’s attorney needs to understand Rob’s case and know what Rob was thinking and feeling at the time of the crime. Please listen to the following statements and decide which one of the two statements is most important to tell Rob’s attorney. Please discuss why the statement you chose is important. Please pick the most important statement out of each pair. 1. Which of these statements is most important to tell Rob’s Attorney? Rob had lived in the same community for 20 years and had played football while in high school. OR Rob was proud of his job and the fact he could take care of his family with the income. Correct Response: # 2. This is the most important because it helps explain why Rob’s job was important to him and what may have been upsetting him at the time of the crime. Fact #1 is not related to the crime. 2. Which of these statements is most important to tell Rob’s attorney? Rob enjoyed spending weekends with his son fishing. OR A friend of Rob’s suggested to Rob he could help him sell merchandise from the warehouse for a big profit. Correct Response: #2. Rob’s thinking may have been influenced by his friend. Fact # 1 does not tell Rob’s attorney about his thinking at the time of the crime. 3. Which of these statements is most important to tell Rob’s attorney? 1. Rob drank several alcoholic drinks before he broke into the warehouse. OR 2. Rob enjoyed going to ball games with his friends. Correct Response: #1. Drinking alcohol can cause someone to act in a way they may not normally act. Fact #2 is not related to the crime. 4. Which of these statements is most important to tell Rob’s Attorney? After stealing the items, Rob tried to convince his friend to let him return the items before anyone discovered them missing. OR Rob had been married happily for 5 years. Correct Response: #1. Rob’s desire to return the merchandise indicates he realized what he did was wrong and that he made a bad decision. Fact #2 is not related to the crime.  Rob’s Plea Bargain Group Exercise First, review the definition of a plea bargain. Read the following to the participant: The maximum sentence Rob could serve for 2nd Degree Burglary is 6 years in prison and the maximum sentence for Theft of $500 to $15,000 is 6 years in prison. Rob is offered a plea bargain in his case. Please listen to the plea bargain offered Rob and decide whether it is a good deal for him to take. Discuss the pros and cons of accepting this plea bargain. Plea Bargain: The District Attorney offers to drop the charge of Theft and have Rob serve two years for Burglary. What does Rob need to know in order to decide whether to accept this plea bargain? Have student(s) discuss the answer After a discussion present the following answers. 1. How much time could Rob serve if found guilty of 2nd Degree Burglary and Theft? 2. Rob needs to know how much evidence there is against him. 2. Can Rob handle the stress of trial? 3. Can Rob handle the stress of serving two years in prison? 3. Does Rob understand that if he accepts a plea bargain that he is pleading guilty to a crime and there is no chance he will be found innocent. 4. Other logical responses are acceptable. Is this a good deal for Rob? Why is it a good deal? Why is it a bad deal? Have students discuss their views of the plea bargain. After discussion cover the following: Good: One of the charges is dropped. He will serve limited time in jail. Bad: He will not be able to try and prove his innocence in court. He gives up his right to appeal the decision. The district attorney does not have to prove that he is guilty. After completing the above exercise; have group members discuss the role of each of the court personnel in this process: including the Defense Attorney, Judge, District Attorney, and the Defendant. Trial begins in fatal fire at Evansville EVANSVILLE, Ind. -- Jury selection began Monday in the trial of a man charged with murder and arson in a November 2006 apartment fire. In September, a District Court Judge ruled that George Mathers, 43, was competent to stand trial in the death of Mary Edwards, 75. Authorities allege Weathers started the fire with a flammable liquid and might have actually been targeting Edwards' neighbor, Lucy Lemon, who was dating Mathers' last year. Mathers is charged in a separate case with stalking Ms. Lemon. Mathers got up and tried to walk out of the courtroom during the September hearing. Mathers' public defender, said he did that because he was frustrated and had been in jail since February. Several witnesses have been served with subpoenas for the trial. Twelve jurors, and possibly a few alternates, will be selected. What did the defendant have to demonstrate in order to be competent? Can the district attorney’s office prove that Mr. Mathers is guilty of setting the fire? If so, is there enough evidence to convict him of murder? What should the defense strategy be? Will the previous stalking charge have an impact on the trial? What will be the likely outcome? Will the jury reach a verdict of not guilty, guilty of arson, or guilty of both arson and murder? If found guilty, what should the sentence be? The Cast of Court Characters Judge: keeps order in the court, rules on the admissibility of evidence, instructs the jury, sentences if found guilty District Attorney: seeks conviction of both charges Defense Attorney: seeks acquittal or lesser sentence Court Recorder: keep track of court proceedings Eye Witness (D.A.): provide testimony regarding what happened during the incident Expert Witness (D.A.): forensic expert in fire technology Alibi Witness (Defense): friend of defendant stating that Mr. Mathers was with him at the time of the apartment fire Defendant (Defense): provide testimony of what happened Jury: listen to the evidence, decide verdict Bailiff: swear in witnesses, assist jury members SHOULD CALVIN PLEA BARGAIN… or not? Officer Will, a police officer, stopped Calvin, who was driving a rental car at five miles an hour over the speed limit. Calvin gave legally valid consent to search the car. Officer Will discovered a substantial quantity of cocaine in the console between the two front seats and arrested Calvin. After being given and waiving his Miranda rights, Calvin explained that he was driving the car for his friend, Donna. He said that Donna was going to meet him at a particular destination to collect her cocaine, which belonged to her. Hoping to obtain a favorable plea bargain, Calvin offered to cooperate with the D.A. Calvin has a past felony possession conviction and does not want to go back to jail. What should he do? Discussion What should Calvin consider when entering a plea? If he does cooperate in exchange for a bargain, what would be an acceptable lesser charge? Will his legal background have any impact on the case? If he does not like the initial offer, could his attorney make a counter offer? What rights would Calvin give up if he pleads guilty to a lesser charge? What are the potential benefits of accepting the plea bargain? What are the potential drawbacks of accepting a deal? If Calvin does not accept the offer and goes to trial, what would be a good defense strategy? What is the likely outcome in the case? APPENDIX C SUGGESTIONS FOR ROLE PLAY PRACTICE ATTORNEY CLIENT ROLE PLAYS Rational Understanding and Decision Making Handout 3 Suggestions for Role Play Practice Legal and interpersonal skills can be learned only if they are PRACTICED, PRACTICED, and PRACTICED. Role-play is a great way to practice your court skills. What skills can you use in the following situations? You have left your defense attorney three phone calls. Your defense attorney has yet to call you back. You want to discuss specifics of your legal case in therapy group. You want to enter a plea of Not Guilty. Your attorney advises you to plea bargain. A jail guard orders you to “cuff up.” You don’t know what he means. The unit psychiatrist opines that you remain incompetent. Thus he/she will not refer you to the ITP evaluator for an updated competency assessment. You spoke with your attorney on the phone. You can’t remember anything your attorney told you. You think the District Attorney should offer you probation as a plea bargain. Your lawyer comes to you and says “they are offering you two years DOC time.” You want a copy of your police reports. CMHIP staff tell you to call your attorney. Three months have passed. You still do not have a copy of your police reports. Your ITP group leader opines that you are not restored. You disagree. You are in court sitting next to your defense attorney. Damning evidence is being presented. You are in court. A witness for your defense does not show up. You are in court. A witness for the prosecution does not show up. You are in court. A witness is lying on the stand. You are talking alone with your attorney. You think your attorney is kind of lazy and is not working hard for you. You are in court sitting next to your attorney. You think your attorney is kind of lazy and is not working hard for you. You are talking alone with your attorney. You think your attorney does not believe you. You are in court. The bailiff is rude to you. Your lawyer says: “An actus reus consists of more than just an act. It also consists of whatever circumstances and consequences are recognized for liability for the offense in question.” You have no idea what your lawyer is saying. You feel stupid. You are scheduled to be in court in one week. Your treatment team notifies you that your hearing has been cancelled and will be rescheduled in three months. You return to jail to await your court hearing that is scheduled to be held in two weeks. The jail staff offers you medications. The medications are different from the ones you were taking at CMHIP. On the day of your hearing, you discover that your case has been reassigned to a new attorney. You are certain that the judge, the sheriff, the D.A., and your defense attorney are “setting you up.” You keep saying this. These statements result in evaluators opining that you are “incompetent.” You hate the hospital. What should you do? Your lawyer advises you to accept a plea bargain that he thinks is a “good deal.” You do not agree. You think there is a better deal. In your opinion, the police reports do not tell “the entire truth.” You have repeatedly told your lawyer to “deal with this.” Your lawyer does nothing. You want to testify and tell your side of the story. Your lawyer tells you that this is not a good idea. You have been opined “incompetent.” You are not sure what this means, but you are sure that you feel insulted and offended! Whom should you go to and what questions can you ask to find out exactly what “incompetency” means? Your public defender advised you that “you have nothing to worry about; just concentrate on your treatment.” However, you are learning material in group that causes you much anxiety. You are beginning to feel panicked about your legal situation. You just learned that your court date was postponed 6 more months due to a mental illness (you do not believe you have). You are in court. You see your public defender laughing and joking with the prosecuting attorney. Dr. X is evaluating you for competency. Dr. X asks, “What did the police say happen?” You are in jail in a two man cell waiting one week for your’ restoration hearing. It’s night and you’re locked in with your celly. He tells you that he read about your case in the paper and so did the rest of population. He says he know you are facing the “bitch” and that you have a lousy P.D., who goes to lunch with the D.A. He says that he had the same “public pretender” and she did nothing for him. Furthermore, he tells you that he has seen you spend about $25 a week at the commissary. He wants $10 and in exchange will cover your’ back and hook you up with a real attorney (jail house lawyer). He says that you need him and his buddies because the word is out that “you like little boys.” The word is out that tomorrow or any day soon, there is a plan to “hit you when you are out in the yard.” He gives you until noon tomorrow, in the chow hall, to cough up the cash. Otherwise, he and his buddies will not help you. He tries to get more information from you about your case. The following day, before noon, your P.D. comes to meet about your hearing next month. The PD asks questions about your competence and readiness for court. He asks if “you’re okay in here,” and “if you are having any problems with the other inmates.” At Noon the following day your’ celly sits down next to you in the chow hall. He is irritable and is demanding the cash. Your psychiatrist uses the intercom to call you to the Nurses Station. When you arrive, she asks if she can speak with you in an adjacent room. You agree and the two of you are seated in the adjacent room. She reviews your chart and then tells you that your psychologist and other staff have noticed that you have been giggling, laughing, speaking very fast and when you do speak you jump from topic to topic. She says, “I know you did not like the Depakote because of the weight gain, however since I changed your medication to Tegretol, it appears that you are becoming manic.” She is aware that your restoration letter has been written and opines that you are competent to proceed. She says that she is very concerned that you will continue to experience an increase in symptoms and an increase in their severity and if something is not done. She worries that when you get to court you will be returned because the judge will likely rule that you are incompetent to proceed and return you to the Hospital. She suggests that you re-start the Depakote immediately.” 33. You were driving down the street with you Uncle and he gets pulled over for a burned out tail light.. The officer suspects that something is up because your Uncle looks all nervous. You don’t know why. The officer calls for back up and they ask the two of you to step out of the vehicle. Underneath the seat in which you were sitting the officer finds more than a gram of meth. You both are arrested and charged with possession with intent to distribute. You really had no idea it was there. You were eventually found ITP. While at the hospital you learned that you’re Uncle fired his public defender, hired a private attorney and his charge was dropped. Your public defender calls you on the phone. You swear that you’re innocent. The public defender said that the D.A.insists on prosecuting you to the full extent of the law. However, despite this being a first drug offense, probation is out of the question and your attorney is trying to negotiate for a shorter prison sentence. You are sick to your stomach, here your Uncle is a repeat drug offender and his charges are dismissed. What do you do? Take it to trial? Accept a plea? You meet with your attorney to discuss this. 34.You are locked in jail, awaiting a competency exam. Your cellmate is a big strong guy who scares you. He reports that he has a stash of Acapulco Gold hidden in the jail. He pressures you to buy some. 35. A CMHIP evaluator opined that you were competent. You returned to jail. You feel great, now. You doubt you ever had a mental illness. If you did have a mental illness, you are certainly cured now! The guards offer you psychotropic medications. You think about refusing these medications. 36. Whenever you think about your legal case you feel overwhelmed and upset. You don’t think that you will ever be able to talk about what happened! 37. You are afraid to talk about your charges. You fear that your peers will call you names and beat you up. 38. You are facing an extremely long prison term for crimes you know you committed. You would rather be at CMHIP than prison. You are not sure you wish to be restored to competency. 39.Your attorney is encouraging you to plead insane. He tells you that if you are adjudicated insane you will only spend a couple of months at CMHIP. 40.Even if all your charges are dropped, you don’t have anywhere to go, anywhere to be, anyway. You kinda like it at CMHIP. 41.Your public defender won’t represent you the way you want. Whenever you insist on representing yourself, people say that you are incompetent to proceed. 42.People keep saying that you are mentally ill. You know they are wrong! You want to get back to court and deal with your legal case. You don’t want to lie and say you have a mental illness, or take medications you don’t need in order to get back to court. 43.You firmly believe the judge and D.A. are in a conspiracy against you due to your status as a CIA informant. Other people have told you that this is a delusional belief. How do you effectively work with your attorney without sharing beliefs others view as delusional? 44.You have had the same public defender in prior cases. You believe that she does not work in your best interest, as she always wants you to plea-bargain your case. What do you do? 45.While in court you see a former associate in the gallery. You are suspicious of why they are there. What do you do? 46.You are in court. You see your attorney chatting and laughing with the Prosecuting attorney. You worry about your attorney’s allegiance to yourself. What do you do? 47.You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The public defender, whom you’ve never met, comes to talk to you with the other inmates sitting there. You want to tell him all about your case, but he ignores you. What do you do? 48.You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The public defender, whom you’ve never met, comes to talk to you with the other inmates sitting there. You want to tell him all about your case, but he tells you not to talk about it now. What do you do? 49.You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The public defender, whom you’ve never met, comes to talk to you with the other inmates sitting there. You want to tell him all about your mental history, but he ignores you. What do you do? 50.You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The public defender, whom you’ve never met, comes to talk to you with the other inmates sitting there. You want to tell him all about your mental history, but he tells you not to talk about it now. What do you do? 51.You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The public defender, whom you’ve never met, comes to talk to you with the other inmates sitting there. You don’t want to tell him all about your case in front of others, but he ignores you. What do you do? 52.You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The public defender, whom you’ve never met, comes to talk to you with the other inmates sitting there. You don’t want to tell him all about your mental history in front of others, but he ignores your wishes. What do you do? 53.You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The public defender, whom you’ve never met, comes over and you ask him about wanting you bail reduced, but he ignores you. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The public defender, whom you’ve never met, comes over and you ask him about wanting you bail reduced, but he tells you not to talk about it now. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The public defender, whom you’ve never met, comes over and you ask him about wanting you bail reduced, but he says the DA won’t agree to that right now. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The public defender, whom you’ve never met, comes over and you ask him about wanting you bail reduced, but he tells you the judge doesn’t want to hear about that right now. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The public defender, whom you’ve never met, comes over and you ask him about wanting you bail reduced, but he tells you the judge will be upset if you bring that up right now. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The jailer tells you not to talk to anyone in the courtroom other than your attorney. Your family is in the audience. What do you do? (Answer: You have to listen to the jailer)) You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The jailer tells you not to talk to anyone in the courtroom other than your attorney. Your family is in the audience and waving at you. What do you do? (Answer: Talk with your attorney regarding how to speak with your family.) You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The jailer tells you not to talk to anyone in the courtroom other than your attorney. Your family is in the audience trying to talk to you. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The jailer tells you not to talk to anyone in the courtroom other than your attorney. You think there is information the judge needs to know about your case. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The jailer tells you not to talk to anyone in the courtroom other than your attorney. Another inmate wants to talk to you. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The public defender, whom you’ve never met, starts talking with the court clerk. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The public defender, whom you’ve never met, starts talking with the district attorney. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The public defender, whom you’ve never met, starts talking with the court clerk and you’re sure you heard your name mentioned. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The public defender, whom you’ve never met, starts talking with the district attorney and you’re sure you heard your name mentioned. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The public defender, whom you’ve never met, starts talking with the district attorney and you want to talk to the district attorney. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The public defender, whom you’ve never met, starts talking with the district attorney, you’re sure you heard your name mentioned and you want to talk to the district attorney. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. You want to talk to the district attorney. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. You want to talk to the judge. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. You begin to feel anxiety. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. You begin to feel symptoms of mental illness. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. Your attorney tells you that you are exhibiting symptoms of mental illness and you don’t believe him. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The public defender, whom you’ve never met, comes to talk to you about your rights, but isn’t explaining it in a way you understand. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The judge is explaining about your rights, but isn’t explaining it in a way you understand. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The district attorney is saying things about you that you don’t agree with. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The district attorney is saying things about the case that you don’t agree with. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The district attorney is saying things about your criminal history that you don’t agree with. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are making your first appearance in court. The district attorney is saying things about your mental health history that you don’t agree with. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender comes to talk to you. You want to tell him all about your case, but he ignores you. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender comes to talk to you. You want to tell him all about your case, but he seems to believe only what is in the police reports. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender comes to talk to you. You want to tell him all about your case, but he just wants you to plead guilty. What do you do? (RM: what do you do?) You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender comes to talk to you. You want to tell him all about your mental health issues, but he just wants to talk about your case. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender comes to talk to you. You want to tell him all about your mental health issues, but he just wants you to plead guilty. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender comes to talk to you. You want to plead guilty, but he just wants to talk about your mental health issues. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender comes to talk to you about possible legal defenses. You don’t understand what he is trying to explain. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender comes to talk to you about possible plea agreements. You don’t understand what he is trying to explain. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender comes to talk to you about possible mental defenses. You don’t understand what he is trying to explain. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender comes to talk to you about possible legal defenses. You want to talk about mental defenses. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender comes to talk to you about possible legal defenses. You want to talk about plea bargains. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender comes to talk to you about possible mental defenses. You want to talk about legal defenses. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender comes to talk to you about possible mental defenses. You want to talk about plea bargains. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender comes to talk to you about possible plea agreements. You want to talk about legal defenses. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender comes to talk to you about possible plea agreements. You want to talk about mental defenses. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender comes to talk to you about possible plea agreements. He previously told you they didn’t have a good case against you. You don’t understand why he’s trying to change what he previously said. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender comes to talk to you about possible plea agreements. He previously told you there was a good defense. You don’t understand why he’s trying to change what he previously said. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender comes to talk to you about possible plea agreements. He previously told you they would not get to use the evidence they got from you against you. You don’t understand why he’s trying to change what he previously said. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender comes to talk to you about possible plea agreements. He previously told you they wouldn’t be able to use your statement you gave to the police against you. You don’t understand why he’s trying to change what he previously said. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender comes to talk to you about possible mental defenses. He previously told you they didn’t have a good case against you. You don’t understand why he’s trying to get you sent to the mental hospital if they don’t have a good case against you. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender comes to talk to you about possible mental defenses. He previously told you they offered a plea agreement you thought was a good deal. You don’t understand why he’s trying to get you sent to the mental hospital if they are willing to make a good offer. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender tells you he thinks you are not competent to stand trial. You don’t understand what that means. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender tells you he thinks you are not competent to stand trial. You don’t agree. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender tells you he thinks you are not competent to stand trial. He previously told you they didn’t have a good case against you. You don’t understand why he’s trying to get you sent to the mental hospital if they don’t have a good case against you. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender tells you he thinks you are not competent to stand trial. He previously told you they would not get to use the evidence they got from you against you. You don’t understand why he’s trying to get you sent to the mental hospital if they don’t have a good case against you. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender tells you he thinks you are not competent to stand trial. He previously told you they would not get to use the statement you gave the police against you. You don’t understand why he’s trying to get you sent to the mental hospital if they don’t have a good case against you. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. The public defender tells you he thinks you are not competent to stand trial. He previously told you they offered a plea agreement you thought was a good deal. You don’t understand why he’s trying to get you sent to the mental hospital if there is a plea agreement you think is okay. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. Your cellmate comes to talk to you. You want to tell him all about your case, but he ignores you. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. Your cellmate comes to talk to you. He wants to give you legal advice. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. Your cellmate comes to talk to you. He wants to give you advice about your lawyer. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. Your cellmate comes to talk to you. He wants to give you advice about the evidence in your case. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. Your cellmate comes to talk to you. He wants to give you advice about your judge. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. Your cellmate comes to talk to you. He wants to give you advice about your district attorney. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. Your cellmate comes to talk to you. He wants to give you advice about your next court appearance. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. Your cellmate comes to talk to you. He wants to give you advice about a possible plea agreement. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. Your cellmate comes to talk to you. He wants to give you advice about pleading NGRI. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. Your cellmate comes to talk to you. He wants to give you advice about competency. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. Your cellmate comes to talk to you. He wants to give you advice about time computation. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. You begin to feel anxiety. What do you do? You’ve been arrested and you are sitting in jail. You begin to feel symptoms of your mental illness. What do you do? You are at a bond hearing with your attorney. You don’t understand what this hearing is all about. What do you do? You are at a bond hearing with your attorney. You want to talk about your defense in the case. He is ignoring you. What do you do? You are at a bond hearing with your attorney. You want to talk about your defense in the case. He says this is not the time for that. What do you do? You are at a bond hearing with your attorney. You want to talk about your defense in the case. He is ignoring you. What do you do? You are at a bond hearing with your attorney. You begin to feel anxiety. What do you do? You are at a bond hearing with your attorney. You begin to feel symptoms of your mental illness. What do you do? You are at a bond hearing with your attorney. Your family is there and wants to talk to the judge. Your attorney disagrees. What do you do? (what do you do?) You are at a bond hearing with your attorney. You want to talk to the judge. Your attorney disagrees. What do you do? You are at a bond hearing with your attorney. You want to talk to the district attorney. Your attorney disagrees. What do you do? You are at a bond hearing with your attorney. The alleged victim testifies that he is afraid of you and wants your bond raised. What do you do? You are at a pretrial conference. You don’t understand what that is. What do you do? You are at a pretrial conference. You cellmate told you to try and get probation, but your attorney doesn’t say anything about probation. What do you do? You are at a pretrial conference. The district attorney wants you to plead to a charge that you didn’t commit and your lawyer says it’s a good deal. What do you do? You are at a pretrial conference. The district attorney wants you to plead to a charge and your lawyer says it’s not a good deal, but you think it is. What do you do? You are at a pretrial conference. The district attorney wants you to plead to a charge and your lawyer says it’s a good deal, but you don’t think it is. What do you do? You are at a pretrial conference. The district attorney wants you to plead to a charge and you want to talk to your family about it, but the district attorney says he wants to know right now. What do you do? You are at a pretrial conference. The district attorney wants you to plead to a charge and you want to talk to your family about it, but your attorney says he wants to know right now. What do you do? You are at a pretrial conference. The district attorney wants you to plead to a charge and you begin to feel anxiety. What do you do? You are at a pretrial conference. The district attorney wants you to plead to a charge and you begin to feel symptoms of your mental illness. What do you do? You are at a pretrial conference. The district attorney wants you to plead to a charge and you want to talk to the judge, but your lawyer says no. What do you do? You are at a pretrial conference. The district attorney wants you to plead to a charge and your lawyer says it’s a good deal, but your cellmate says it isn’t. What do you do? You are at a pretrial conference. The district attorney wants you to plead to a charge and your lawyer says it’s a good deal, but your family thinks it isn’t. What do you do? You are at a pretrial conference. The district attorney wants you to plead to a charge and your lawyer says it’s a good deal, but you remember him telling you earlier how the district attorney could never prove the case. What do you do? You are at a pretrial conference. The district attorney wants you to plead to a charge and your lawyer says it’s a good deal, but you remember him telling you earlier that all the evidence would not be admissible. What do you do? You are at a pretrial conference. The district attorney wants you to plead to a charge and your lawyer says it’s a good deal, but you remember him telling you earlier that the district attorney couldn’t use your confession at a trial. What do you do? You are at a pretrial conference. Your lawyer and the district attorney are talking and laughing just out of earshot. What do you do? You are at a pretrial conference. Your lawyer and the district attorney are talking and laughing just out of earshot and looking over at you. What do you do? You are at a pretrial conference. Your lawyer and the district attorney are talking and laughing just out of earshot and you think you hear your name mentioned. What do you do? You are at a pretrial conference. Your lawyer and the district attorney leave the room to talk about your case. What do you do? You are at a pretrial conference. Your lawyer and the district attorney leave the room to talk about your case and you want to be there when your case is discussed. What do you do? You are at a pretrial conference. Your lawyer and the district attorney leave the room to talk about your case and you want to be there when your case is discussed, but your lawyer says it’s a bad idea. What do you do? You are at a pretrial conference. Your lawyer and the district attorney leave the room to talk about your case and you want to be there when your case is discussed, but your lawyer says to not say anything. What do you do? You agree to accept a plea bargain and your lawyer gives you a long document to read and sign. What do you do? You agree to accept a plea bargain and your lawyer gives you a long document to read and sign, but you don’t understand it. What do you do? You agree to accept a plea bargain and your lawyer gives you a long document to read and sign, but you can’t read. What do you do? You agree to accept a plea bargain and your lawyer gives you a long document to read and sign, but you can’t understand all the words. What do you do? You agree to accept a plea bargain and your lawyer gives you a long document to read and sign, but you don’t understand what some of the concepts discussed in the document mean. What do you do? You agree to accept a plea bargain and your lawyer gives you a long document to read and sign, and you begin to feel anxiety. What do you do? You agree to accept a plea bargain and your lawyer gives you a long document to read and sign, and you begin to feel symptoms of your mental illness. What do you do? You agree to accept a plea bargain and your lawyer gives you a long document to read and sign, but you want to talk to your family first. What do you do? You agree to accept a plea bargain and your lawyer gives you a long document to read and sign. What do you do? You agree to a plea bargain and you are entering the plea in front of the judge and she uses words you don’t understand. What do you do? You agree to a plea bargain and you are entering the plea in front of the judge and she talks to you like you are a child. What do you do? You agree to a plea bargain and you are entering the plea in front of the judge and you begin to feel anxiety. What do you do? You agree to a plea bargain and you are entering the plea in front of the judge and you begin to feel symptoms of your mental illness. What do you do? You agree to a plea bargain and you are entering the plea in front of the judge and your lawyer uses words you don’t understand. What do you do? You agree to a plea bargain and you are entering the plea in front of the judge and your lawyer talks to you like you are a child. What do you do? You agree to a plea bargain and you are entering the plea in front of the judge and you start to have second thoughts about it. What do you do? (What do you do?) You agree to a plea bargain and you are entering the plea in front of the judge and your medication makes it hard to concentrate. What do you do? You agree to a plea bargain and you are entering the plea in front of the judge and you didn’t take your medication, so it’s hard to concentrate. What do you do? You go to court and your lawyer says it’s for a motions hearing. You don’t know what that means. What do you do? You go to court and your lawyer says it’s for a suppression hearing. You don’t know what that means. What do you do? You go to court and your lawyer says it’s for an ID hearing. You don’t know what that means. What do you do? You go to court and your lawyer says it’s for a preliminary hearing. You don’t know what that means. What do you do? You go to court and your lawyer says it’s for a probable cause hearing. You don’t know what that means. What do you do? You go to court and your lawyer says it’s for a motions hearing. You want to testify, but your lawyer says it’s a bad idea. What do you do? You go to court and your lawyer says it’s for a preliminary hearing. You want to testify, but your lawyer says it’s a bad idea. What do you do? You go to court and your lawyer says it’s for a motions hearing. Your lawyer wants you to testify, but you think it’s a bad idea. What do you do? You go to court for a hearing and your lawyer wants you to testify, but hasn’t talked with you about what the testimony will be about. What do you do? You go to court for a hearing and your lawyer wants you to testify, but you begin to feel anxiety. What do you do? You go to court for a hearing and your lawyer wants you to testify, but you begin to feel symptoms of your mental illness. What do you do? You go to court for a hearing and your lawyer wants you to testify, but your medication makes it hard to concentrate or understand. What do you do? You go to court for a hearing and your lawyer wants you to testify, but you haven’t taken your medication so you are having trouble concentrating or understanding things. What do you do? You are called to testify at a hearing. The judge or her clerk tells you to raise your right hand and says, “Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth?” You don’t understand. What do you do? You are called to testify at a hearing. The judge or her clerk tells you to raise your right hand and says, “Do you swear before the ever living God to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?” You don’t believe in God. What do you do? (What?) You are called to testify at a hearing. The judge or her clerk tells you to raise your right hand and says, “Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth?” You are later asked a question you don’t want to answer. What do you do? You are testifying in a hearing and your lawyer asks a question you don’t understand. What do you do? You are testifying in a hearing and the district attorney asks a question you don’t understand. What do you do? You are testifying in a hearing, your lawyer asks a question and the district attorney “objects.” You don’t know what that means. What do you do? You are testifying in a hearing, your lawyer asks a question and the district attorney “objects.” What do you do? You are testifying in a hearing, your lawyer asks a question and the district attorney “objects.” The judge says the objection is “sustained.” What do you do? You are testifying in a hearing, your lawyer asks a question and the district attorney “objects.” The judge says the objection is “overruled.” What do you do? You are testifying in a hearing, the district attorney asks a question and the your lawyer “objects.” You don’t know what that means. What do you do? You are testifying in a hearing, the district attorney asks a question and the your lawyer “objects.” What do you do? You are testifying in a hearing, the district attorney asks a question and the your lawyer “objects.” The judge says the objection is “sustained.” What do you do? You are testifying in a hearing, the district attorney asks a question and the your lawyer “objects.” The judge says the objection is “overruled.” What do you do? You are testifying in a hearing, your attorney asks a question and while you are answering the district attorney “objects.” What do you do? You are testifying in a hearing, your attorney asks a question and while you are answering the district attorney “objects.” The judge says the objection is “sustained.” What do you do? You are testifying in a hearing, your attorney asks a question and while you are answering the district attorney “objects.” The judge says the objection is “overruled.” What do you do? You are testifying at a hearing and you want the judge to know something, but no one has asked you about it. What do you do? You are testifying at a hearing and begin to have anxiety. What do you do? You are testifying at a hearing and begin to symptoms of your mental illness. What do you do? You are at a hearing and witnesses are testifying. What do you do? You are at a hearing and witnesses are testifying. You don’t like what they are saying. What do you do? You are at a hearing and witnesses are testifying. You don’t understand what they are saying. What do you do? You are at a hearing and witnesses are testifying. You disagree with what they are saying. What do you do? You are at a hearing and witnesses are testifying. You believe they are lying. What do you do? You are at a hearing and witnesses are testifying. You can’t hear what they are saying. What do you do? You are at a hearing and witnesses are testifying. You want to talk to your lawyer about what they are saying. What do you do? You are at a hearing and witnesses are testifying. You want to talk to your lawyer about what they are saying. He is ignoring you. What do you do? You know from talking to him that a fellow patient has the same public defender as you. You find out that the other guy is found competent, goes to court, and goes home with a minimal sentence. The next time you talk to your attorney, however, you feel like she thinks you are guilty and wants you to do time. The last time you were in court, you saw your public defender laughing and chatting with the district attorney. You know they both work for the government and aren’t sure that you are getting good representation. You are afraid to tell your new court-appointed attorney your side of the story because the last time you did that, your old attorney told the court you were incompetent and got you sent to CMHIP. In the public defender’s office in the county you are from, they keep having staff turnover. Through no fault of your own, you have had 5 attorneys in the last year and keep having to start over with new ones. The only contact you have ever had with your attorney was for a few minutes in the courtroom. Now you are being told that you need to trust and work with the person that you hardly know. It takes you much longer to get to know people and decide whether you can trust them. Your close family member got screwed by a bad attorney who took all of his money and then did a bad job representing him and is now spending a life sentence in DOC. Since then, you have never trusted attorneys. To be found competent you have learned that you have to work with your assigned attorney. You are much older than your attorney who looks like a baby who just got out of high school. You have your doubts about this person who has probably never even been in a courtroom before!! What do you do? You have been spending a lot of time in the law library and talking to people, researching your case. You know exactly what you want to do in court. When you start talking to your assigned attorney, you believe that you know more about the law than your attorney. You know that if you are argumentative or aggressive you may be found incompetent again, what do you do? You truly dislike and cannot work with your assigned attorney. However, you have already gone through several public defenders and court-appointed attorneys and you are afraid that if you ask for another one, it will be used against you in your competency hearing. You are absolutely certain that you saw your attorney and the judge giving each other private hand signals in the court room and this led to your being held against your will at CMHIP. You really want out of here, but don’t know what to do, since they are working together. Your attorney seems like she’s representing you o.k. but she is really rude to you. When your family talks to her, she’s rude to them also. Your attorney seems like she’s representing you o.k. but she is really rude to you. When your family talks to her, or when she talks to you when there are other people around, she is really pleasant and nice. She’s only rude when you are alone or on the phone. Whenever you talk to your attorney, it seems like he is in a big hurry, has a stack of cases, and can’t keep track of which client he is talking to. You have to keep reminding him of the details of your case. Your attorney smelled like alcohol the last time you were in court. Your attorney always says, “good news!” so you don’t know if it really is good news or if this is just something that she always says. APPENDIX D ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES  Legal Rights Jeopardy For this activity the concepts related to competency will be reviewed while playing a Jeopardy-like game. Prior to group the group leader will have to create the questions and display for the game. Begin with 20 post-it or other sticky notes. On the front of 5 or 6 sticky notes write category names such as Pleas, Verdicts, Consequences, Courtroom Personnel, Legal Rights, etc… Divide the remaining notes onto 100, 200, 300, 400, and 500-point levels under each of the categories you created. Write the point value on the front of the sticky note. On the back of each point level sticky note write a question appropriate for each category. For example, a 100 point plea question may state “What is a plea?” a 200 point pleas questions may be “What does a plea of guilty mean?” a 300 point plea question may be “ What does a plea of not guilty mean?” and a 400 point plea question may be “ What is the difference between a guilty and not guilty plea?” Another plea question may be “When is a plea entered, at the beginning or end of a trial?” or “ What does a plea of Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity mean?” After you have written a question for each point value under each category stick the notes on a board or wall with the category at the top and the point values in ascending order under the appropriate category. ( Note: the category and point value should be written on the side of the note without stick-um and the question should be written on the back/sticky side of the note) The Group leader should have the participants choose a category and point value and then ask the participant the chosen questions. If the participant gets the question correct he earns that point value. You may divide the group into teams and keep score or have each individual play for him (her) self. When keeping score make sure the score is written or posted where the players can see while playing. If possible offer a small prize/incentive to the person or team who wins the game.  Legal Rights Monopoly For this activity the concepts related to competency will be reviewed while playing a Monopoly like game. Prior to group the group leader will have to create the board game square and player pieces. Begin by creating board game squares by typing on separate sheets of paper competency related questions and directions to either move forward or backwards based on the group member giving a correct or incorrect response. Also, create squares on the board that say Jail, Forensic Hospital, Court, Home, and take a get out of jail free card. Group leaders will need to create get out of jail free cards. (Note: in order to have game pieces last you may want to either laminate the pieces or place them in a protective plastic cover) An example game board square piece may look like: Example 1: Move 1 space forward if you can describe a jury JURY If you cannot describe a jury, move one space backward Example 2: COMMITTED A CRIME GO TO JAIL Example 3: FOUND NOT GUILTY GO HOME Example 4: GO BACK THREE SPACES Example 5: BAD DRUG SCREEN RETURN TO FORENSIC Example 6: JAIL- MISS ONE TURN Example 7: If you can describe the duties of the judge move forward 3 spaces JUDGE If you can not describe the duties of the judge move backward one space 2. After creating all of the board game squares place them around a table in order so they represent a monopoly game board. Players will start and end the game at HOME. 3. Group leaders will need to either bring in or create game pieces for each player (with monopoly there is a shoe, horse, etc.- I have created paper cones with different colored post-it notes as a substitute in the past). Also, a dice is needed. 4. The game is played just as monopoly. Each player rolls the dice and performs the act listed on each square they land upon. The player who makes it home first is the winner.APPENDIX E Competency Relevant Contingency Management System (CMS) and Goals Group Targets RATIONAL UNDERSTANDING AND DECISION MAKING SKILLS HANDOUT 4 Competency Relevant Contingency Management System (CMS) and Goals Group Targets (Update: Dec. 2nd, 2007) Relevant Uses memory book X times per day Uses repetition to enhance memory X times per day Applies SODAS X times per day Reviews police report X times per week in 1:1 Accurately recites charges, possible penalties, possible pleas, evidence and name of attorney accurately X times per week Accurately reports key court players and their respective roles X times per week Uses computerized ITP training program X times per week Accurately recites warning signs (see Liberman) of mental illness X times per week Maintains symptom log of symptoms daily (see Liberman) Accurately recites residual symptoms X times per week (see Liberman) Accurately recites medications and dosage X times per week Discusses pros and cons of paranoid beliefs regarding legal system and offenses X times per week Asks for clarification when he doesn’t understand something X times per week Recites ITP acronyms (e.g. LAW, etc) X times per day Accurately describes factors to consider in a plea bargain (offer, evidence, history, extent of charges, etc) X times per week Accurately describes procedures to follow if he is dissatisfied with attorney X times per week Uses “go/no go” signals (see Liberman) prior to initiating conversations X times per day. Uses DEARMAN assertion skill to ask questions X times per week (see Linehan) Uses a DeBono skill (see Cognitive Skills) daily Accurately describe three reasons why the judge found you incompetent (daily). Accurately recites what someone else told him (daily) Tracks frequency of paranoid thoughts about attorney or legal system on diary card daily. Plans and completes writing letter to attorney summarizing questions about case by X date. Folds hands or puts in pocket while speaking (rather than flailing hands about) X times per day. Participates in Role Play or Mock Trial and obtains X% correct answers X times per week. Participates in adversarial Role Play or Mock Trial, without yelling or screaming, using X skills (e.g. I statements, self-soothing, SODAS, DEARMAN, etc.) X times per week. Completes SODAS or Pros/Cons regarding accepting attorney’s advice X times per week. Accurately describes the limits of privileged communication by X. Speaks to attorney on phone using X skills (e.g. I statements, SODAS, self soothing, DEARMAN, etc), X times per month. Practice two skills twice per week to increase the likelihood of remaining relaxed in a stressful courtroom environment. Discuss pros and cons of trusting your attorney X times per month. Discuss pros and cons of representing yourself in court (pro se) after you are found competent to proceed X times per month. Discuss X times per week, the things you need to do to remain competent while waiting in jail for your competency hearing. Patient will complete ITP role-play X with staff person once per shift I and shift II. Patient will discuss and demonstrate one “go” and one “No Go” signal related to working with their attorney and/or judge on shift II. Pt will complete Liberman seven step problem solving process (1: Stop and Think, 2: What is the problem? 3: Alternatives, 4: Evaluate alternatives, 5: Choose and plan alternative, 6: Consider needed resources, 7 Make commitment to time and date), once weekly. Problem will be related to ITP status. Results will be presented at weekly goals group. Ask staff one question related to the legal system. Write down the answers once in each waking shift. Do pros and cons for enter X plea X times per week. Discuss what a good plea bargain is, in your particular case, X times per week. Enter questions, answers, and notes for your attorney or ITP group leader X times per week in your competency notebook. Recite pros and cons of taking medications, as prescribed, X times per week. Do pros and cons of remaining ITP. Do pros and cons of becoming competent. Sit with staff five minutes per shift and identify three specific things you have done to be restored to competency. For pts with anger problems, identify your most recent episode of anger and how it relates to your offense cycle (could this open up a can of worms?) Sit with staff five minutes per shift and discuss your personal goals in your legal case. Listen to feedback regarding how realistic your goals sound. States rights he will give up if he/she accepts a plea bargain. Practices “ITP study sheet” once per shift. Identify consequences of speaking with prosecution without defense attorney present X times per X. Discusses strengths of the case including witnesses and evidence X times per X. Discusses pros and cons of plea-bargaining vs. pleading not guilty vs. pleading guilty X times per X. Discusses effective method of dealing with a lying prosecution witness once weekly. Effectively troubleshoots or role-plays problem situation: e.g. he/she does not understand what the judge or prosecution is asking or saying, X times per X. Describes Pros and Cons of 5th amendment rights in regards to current legal proceedings X times per X. Describes consequences of being found out or order in the courtroom X times per week. Accurately describes possible range of outcomes in current legal case X times per X. Describes Pros and Cons of NGRI plea X times per X. Identifies X advantages and X disadvantages of accepting a hypothetical plea offer X times per X Describes role of judges, jury, DA, and defense attorney USING OWN WORDS* (no memorized statements from workbook) X times per X Describes judicial process after pleading not guilty X times per X. Uses Memory Book daily. Takes notes every day answering “wh” questions. Writes a “To Do” list daily. Uses Calendar daily. Repeats information 5 times out loud daily. Rehearses prior to calling attorney. Uses association strategies daily to recall information. Writes down directions daily. Places important items such as wallet in same place every time every day. Creates a place for everything in his/her room. Uses memory by watching news and summarizing in writing what is remembered, daily. Uses memory by taking 10 minutes at the end of the day to summarize what happened, including any new information learned that day. Prepares for next day by recalling tasks that still need completion as well as other responsibilities needed. Writes this daily. Recalls daily list of “To Dos” and compares to written list for accuracy. Looks at calendar three times per day. Uses memory by recalling at the end of the week three or five people whom they talked to during the week. To increase difficulty attempt to recall the topic of discussion. Applies DeBono thinking skill to legal situation, out loud, daily. Uses Go/No Go signals daily. Discusses attorney’s Go/No Go signal weekly. Completes one Liberman Problem Solving Worksheet (see F14) daily. Accurately describes warning signs of mental illness daily. Accurately completes Persistent Symptoms Rating Sheet (see F20) daily. Uses 5 techniques for coping with Persistent Symptoms daily. Uses Wise Mind ACCEPTS distraction skills daily (see F23) Uses PLEASE MASTER emotional modulation skills daily (see F23) Uses DEAR MAN assertion skills daily (see F24). Completes daily mood log related to legal situation daily (see F26). Uses one of 15 ways to fight cognitive distortions related to legal situation daily (see F30). Completes Cost Benefit Analysis of Beliefs or Actions daily. Not as Relevant Follows rules. Acts polite. Attends groups States attendance rate at ITP group Does ADLs  APPENDIX F VIDEO RESOURCES Film* Description/Educational Purpose Location Anatomy of a Murder The film is a 1959 trial court drama. It examines the apparent fallibility of the human factor in jurisprudence. Issues of interest are witness coaching, the legal defense of insanity (“irresistable impulse”) and recreating memories. Patient Library – Rec Center A Civil Action Based on the real life case of Anderson vs. Cryovac that took place in Massachusetts in the 1980’s. Anderson v. Cryovac was a landmark federal case concerning toxic contamination. Patient Library – Rec Center Judgment at Nuremberg This film is historically significant and portrays tense yet very realistic court dynamics. Made in 1961, it is a fictionalized account of the post-World War II Nuremberg Trials. The film depicts the trial of certain judges who executed Nazi law. Such a trial did occur: the film was inspired by the Judge’s Trial before the U.S. Nurember Military Tribunal in 1947. A key thread in the film's plot involves a "race defilement" trial known as the "Feldenstein case". Patient Library – Rec Center 12 Angry Men An important film about jury dynamics. One juror must convince the other eleven jurors to consider the “reasonable doubt” based on the evidence in the case. The plot of the film revolves around their difficulty in reaching a unanimous verdict due, in some cases, to the jurors' prejudices Patient Library – Rec Center AND HS – 5 (purchased with H & W funds) The Staircase A 10- hour documentary filming the entire footage of the trial of Michael Peterson who was accused of killing one wife, and then two, on the staircase. The film details the defense perspective, including expert witnesses, the defense team, and high-powered defense attorney. The documentary has many interesting twists and turns, but primarily grabs you from the standpoint of scientific evidence versus human passion. HS – 5 (purchased with H & W funds) To Kill a Mockingbird A classic from 1960 set in the South and based on a novel. The character of Atticus Finch, the narrator's father, has served as a moral hero for many readers, and a singular model of integrity for lawyers. Patient Library – Rec Center Law & Order Trial by Jury (the complete series; thirteen episodes) Exploration of the judicial system from the point of view of the police, prosecutors, defense team, judges, jurors, and the defendants. The characters frequently encounter dilemmas and frustrations as cases go through the stages of investigation, arrest, negotiation and trial. HS – 5 (purchased with H & W funds) Perry Mason Season I, Volume 2 (5 DVD;s, total of 21 episodes) A defense attorney who cleverly gathers evidence to establish his client’s innocence. The series also set a precedent for other mystery series in that it was the first detective show to feature either a tape or chalk outline to mark the spot where the murder victim's body had been found. HS – 5 (purchased with H & W funds) Fact or Fiction: Courtroom Myths (Court TV News) Do defendants often break down on the witness stand and admit their guilt? Views of trials are frequently based on the portrayals of courtrooms in the movies on TV. This video clears up misconceptions about what really happens in a courtroom. On order as of 11/07. My Cousin Vinny Rated R. Use discretion. Factual information regarding discovery and other legal rules. HS-11 * Many of these films provide completely unrealistic portrayals of lawyers, court, and the legal system. If patients understand how unrealistic these portrayals are, these videos are useful. Conversely, if patients expect their lawyers to act in the same manner as, for example, John Travolta (in “A Civil Action”) or Gregory Peck (in “To Kill a Mockingbird”), this is an unrealistic expectation. They should not hold their breaths waiting for someone to leap up and confess, as in “Perry Mason.” Never happens.Courtroom Myths Video This video, produced by Court TV, outlines several commonly held myths related to the legal system. The video outlines ten myths, seven or eight of which are useful to cover in group. This video does not teach competency information per se, but it is educational, and may stimulate good competency related discussion in group. This video should be watched one myth at a time, stopping for group discussion after the presentation of each myth. Below are some suggested topics to be discussed after viewing each myth. Myth 1: Defense lawyers will lie to get clients off. Discussion after viewing this myth may focus on: what is the job of the defense attorney, how can you help your defense attorney defend you in court, what should you tell your defense attorney, etc. Myth 2: Circumstantial evidence is not good evidence. Discussion: what is evidence?, how does evidence effect the jury’s decision or the verdict, how can you help your lawyer find/present evidence, how would the amount of evidence in a case effect your decision to enter a guilty or not guilty plea or your decision to accept a plea bargain, etc. Myth 3: It’s easy to take children away from their parents – This myth is not relevant to criminal cases and should be skipped Myth 4: Premeditated murder is actually pre-planned. This myth may or may not add to group discussion. Myth 5: It is common for criminals to get off on technicalities all the time. Discussion: Ask any of the group members if they think they could get off on a technicality and how difficult that may be, discussion about the collection and presentation of evidence, etc. Myth 6: Public Defenders aren’t really good lawyers. Discussion: Perceptions of their public defender, discussion about how they can best help their public defender since most public defenders have large caseloads, discussion of the legal right requiring the appointment of a lawyer if one can not afford a lawyer, etc. Myth 7: Black jurors cannot impartially decide a black defendants case Discussion: What is the role of a juror, how are jurors chosen, how do jurors make a decision, how many jurors make up a jury, what should effect the jurors decision in a case, etc. Myth 8: A Jury verdict means the case is closed. This myth discusses civil cases with monetary rewards and is not relevant to our discussion. Myth 9: At the end of the trial we know the truth. Discussion: How is evidence presented at trial, how does human interaction in trial effect the process, why do we have trials, etc. Myth 10: Do judges really bang a gavel to bring court to order. Discussion: What is the role of a judge, what may happen to you if you do not follow the rules set by the judge, etc..Television Courtroom Drama Discussion CMHIP has purchased DVD’s containing several seasons of Law and Order and Law for use in competency restoration groups. Other television programs may be recorded or purchased by group leaders and used for training purposes. These programs should be screened by group leaders to determine whether the entire show should be viewed or whether only certain scenes containing information relevant to competency restoration should be viewed. State Hospitals are often criticized for providing little other than medications and T.V. Clearly, watching an entire show is not likely the best use of group time; watching an entire show might be best assigned as homework. After viewing the program a group discussion should take place focusing on portions of the program relevant to the information being learned in competency restoration group. Topics of relevance that are common in most Law and Order programs include: Courtroom personnel and their roles a defendant’s relationship with his/her attorney and how a defendant should cooperate with his/her attorney entering pleas verdicts and their consequences including sentencing after a guilty verdict legal rights interaction between the police, D.A., and defense attorneys witnesses; examination and cross examination of witnesses the flow of court from entering a plea, to opening statements, examination, cross examination, verdict, and sentencing courtroom behavior other relevant information such as types and amount of evidence presented, alibi’s, perjury, etc…..  APPENDIX G Integration with IFP Psychosocial Treatment Rational Understanding & Decision Making 2008--2