The landmark case governing adjudicative competency is Dusky v. United States which held that the test for competence is “whether the accused has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” Dr. Ernst begins competency evaluations with a detailed conversation with the defendant’s attorney, regarding his observation of symptoms, potential dispositions, possible legal strategies, and the specific capacities the defendant must exhibit to assist in his defense. This conversation provides a framework to assess the presence or absence of capacities, relevant to the Dusky Standard, which the defendant must exhibit in in his unique legal circumstances. Dr. Ernst routinely utilizes forensic assessment instruments designed to assess competency including the FIT-R, ILK, and MacCAT-CA. He carefully distinguishes between competence to assist counsel (the capacity to understand one’s charges and the legal process) and decisional competence (the capacity to rationally apply this knowledge to one’s unique legal circumstances). Dr. Ernst has conducted numerous competency evaluations with individuals presenting with diverse psychiatric presentations including psychosis, mania, and neuropsychological impairment.

While courts have agreed that the Dusky Standard is the appropriate legal standard for juvenile competency, they have relied upon diverging approaches to applying this legal standard to juveniles. For instance, in the Adult Norms standard, the juvenile is expected to demonstrate the same degree of capacity as an adult to be found competent to stand trial. Alternatively, in the Adolescent Norms standard, a juvenile’s competency is determined in relation to the normative capacities of the average adolescent. In such a non-uniform legal context, Dr. Ernst is aware of the critical need to clearly explain the basis of opinions so that they may be utilized regardless of the legal standard that is ultimately applied. In California, per P.C. 1367 (a) and W&I 709, a juvenile’s incompetence may be caused by a mental disorder, developmental disability, or development immaturity. Thus, given a wide body of research indicating that children’s thinking is developmentally distinct from adults, Dr. Ernst carefully evaluates components of developmental immaturity which may impact competency include impulsivity, abstract thinking, perception of risk, and perspective in decision-making. Dr. Ernst utilizes the Juvenile Adjudicative Competence Instrument to guide his collection of developmentally relevant data.

As assessment of violence risk may be required in legal settings including capital sentencing, MDO evaluations, evaluations of individuals found NGRI, and the evaluation of sexually violent predators. When conducting violence risk assessments, Dr. Ernst carefully considers the presence or absence of risk factors or protective factors that have been empirically associated with the particular type of violence that is being assessed. He additionally conducts an individualized assessment to determine the chain of external and internal events which have historically led to violent episodes. When appropriate, Dr. Ernst utilizes violence risk assessment instruments, such as HCR-20, while carefully considering the extent to which the examinee is represented by the population with which the test was developed or validated, and research on the test’s accuracy rates. When requested, Dr. Ernst recommends interventions which may reduce the risk for violence in the future. Dr. Ernst has completed violence risk assessments of individuals with histories of severe physical or sexual violence who present with psychotic disorders, personality disorders, substance use disorder, psychopathic features, or severe neuropsychological impairment. He is additionally experienced in the retrospective assessment of violence risk as may be applied to civil proceedings.

In the capital arena, psychologists may be retained or appointed during sentencing or habeas corpus proceedings in order to provide opinions relevant to mitigation, violence risk, ineffective assistance of counsel, and present or retrospective competency. Within this complex legal arena, in which examinees face the most severe of punishments, Dr. Ernst approaches evaluations with a precise understanding of the limitations of referral questions, a thorough review of applicable research, and a meticulously organized approach to reviewing records and other relevant data. Dr. Ernst’s opinions in capital proceedings have been related to psychiatric diagnoses, the retrospective assessment of adjudicative competency, and the retrospective assessment of the impact of substance use on psychological functioning.

A mitigation evaluation may be requested by the defense to investigate mitigating factors which provide a more humanizing narrative of the defendant’s life. Mitigation evaluations are not utilized to question the criminal culpability of the defendant, but alternatively to assert that the defendant’s life history and mental status reduce his moral culpability and need for punishment. Moral culpability, at the heart of mitigation, acknowledges that we do not arrive at our decisions from equivalent psychological resources, and in turn are not equally blameworthy.

Juvenile or young adult mitigation evaluations require a careful analysis of the role of incomplete brain development, particularly in the frontal lobes, on crime-related factors including impulsive decision making, faulty values, poor judgment, and empathy deficits. Before the age of 25, the development of brain architecture, connectivity, and chemistry is incomplete, rendering adolescent and young adult’s thinking and behavior fundamental distinct from that of adults. As reported by the APA brief as amici curiae, filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. Alambama (2012), “brain systems that govern many aspects of social and emotional maturity, such as impulse control, risk avoidance, planning ahead, and coordination of emotion and cognition, continue to mature throughout adolescence.”

The brain immaturity of adolescents interacts with neurodevelopmental factors to dramatically reduce the adolescent’s degree of choice in engaging in criminal behavior. During juvenile mitigation evaluations, Dr. Ernst provides a scientifically based review of the role of brain immaturity and neurodevelopmental factors in the commission of the instant offense. Neurodevelopmental factors considered include, but are not limited to, psychological trauma and community violence, lead or other toxin exposure, ADHD, corruptive modeling, pathogenic family narratives, and substance use.

It is critical that the court understands the great body of statistical research indicating that the vast majority of juvenile offenders, even those who commit serious crimes, desist criminal activity, as they enter into adulthood. As reported by the APA amici curiae breif, some degree of criminal and antisocial behavior is indeed normative during adolescence, as a consequence of brain immaturity, and, “both violent crimes and less serious offenses peak sharply in adolescence and drop precipitously in young adulthood.” Thus, upon request, Dr. Ernst draws upon this research in combination with an individually based violence risk assessment, to provide an analysis of the defendant’s risk for re-offense.