Forensic Evaluations in Kansas Criminal Courts: What They Are and What They Mean

About the Presenter: Mitchell R. Flesher, PhD, JD

• Education:
  • PhD in Clinical Psychology, Kent State University.
  • Juris Doctor (JD), Washburn University School of Law.
• Training: Forensic Post-Doctoral Fellowship, specializing in criminal evaluations.
• Professional Experience:
  • Licensed Psychologist since 2003 (Kansas #1223).
  • Private Practice since 2014.
  • Previous Employers: Kansas Department of Corrections, Veterans Administration, Clinical Associates, P.A.
• Contact: flesherm@swbell.net | 913-220-3282

Agenda Overview

• Introduction (5 min)
• Competency to Stand Trial (10 min)
• Mental Disease or Defect Defense (10 min)
• Mitigation of Sentence (10 min)
• Risk Assessment (10 min)
• Psychological Instruments (19 min)
• Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (10 min)
• Case Comparisons: Competency (20 min)
• Case Comparisons: Mental Disease Defense (20 min)
• Practical Considerations (5 min)
• Q&A (10 min)

Introduction: Forensic Evaluations

Assessments by psychologists/psychiatrists to inform criminal justice decisions in Kansas courts.

• Purpose: Evaluate mental state, competency, risk, or mitigation factors.
• Settings: Trials, sentencing, appeals.
• Objective: Provide evidence-based findings aligned with Kansas statutes.

Competency to Stand Trial: Overview

Ensures defendants can participate in their defense in Kansas criminal proceedings.

• Legal Basis: Dusky v. United States (1960).
• Kansas Law: K.S.A. 22-3302.
• Focus: Current mental capacity, not offense-related.

Competency: Dusky Standard

• Criteria:
  • Rational/factual understanding of charges/proceedings.
  • Ability to assist counsel effectively.
• Implications: Incompetency halts proceedings for treatment under K.S.A. 22-3303.

Competency: Evaluation Process

• Components:
  • Clinical interviews.
  • Psychological testing (e.g., ECST-R).
  • Collateral data (e.g., jail behavior, medical history).
• Challenges: Detecting malingering, assessing fluctuating symptoms.

Competency: Structured Clinical Interview vs. Standardized Testing

• Structured Clinical Interview (e.g., ECST-R):
  • Pros: Flexible, captures nuanced behavior, clinician insight.
  • Cons: Subjective, lacks standardization, prone to bias.
• Standardized Psychological Testing (e.g., WAIS-5, MMPI-3):
  • Pros: Objective, reliable, quantifiable results.
  • Cons: Limited context, potential cultural bias, time-intensive.
• Recommendation: Combine both for comprehensive evaluation.

Mental Disease or Defect Defense: Overview

Exempts defendants from guilt in Kansas if mental disease impaired intent.

• Kansas Statute: K.S.A. 21-5209.
• Scope: Mental state at time of offense.
• Exclusions: Voluntary intoxication, temporary states.

Mental Disease: K.S.A. 21-5209

• Definition: Defense requires mental disease/defect negating culpable mental state.
• Criteria:
  • Severe, persistent disorder (e.g., schizophrenia).
  • Direct link to intent impairment.
• Success Rate: <1% due to stringent requirements.

Mental Disease: Evaluation Process

• Methods:
  • Retrospective interviews.
  • Testing (e.g., MMPI-3 for psychosis).
  • Historical records (e.g., prior diagnoses).
• Prosecutor Role: Challenge diagnosis validity, intent linkage.

Mitigation of Sentence: Overview

Reduces sentence severity in Kansas based on mental health or other factors.

• Statutes: K.S.A. 21-6815, 21-6817.
• Focus: Diminished culpability, rehabilitation potential.
• Examples: Mental disorders, trauma, remorse.

Mitigation: K.S.A. 21-6815

• Guidelines: Permits mitigation for reduced culpability.
• Mental Health Factors:
  • Impaired judgment (e.g., low WAIS-5 scores).
  • Psychiatric diagnoses (e.g., MMPI-3 findings).
• Judicial Role: Weighs against aggravating factors.

Mitigation: K.S.A. 21-6817

• Departure: Allows sentence reduction for “substantial and compelling reasons.”
• Examples:
  • Chronic mental illness.
  • Treatment amenability.
• Prosecutor Role: Validate evidence, ensure public safety.

Risk Assessment: Overview

Estimates future violent or sexual offending using structured tools.

• Purpose: Guide sentencing, supervision, release decisions in Kansas.
• Approach: Actuarial (e.g., Static-99R) + clinical judgment.
• Key Areas: Violent and sexual recidivism.

Risk Assessment: Violent Recidivism

• Tools:
  • VRAG-R: Historical factors (e.g., prior arrests).
  • HCR-20^V3: Historical, clinical, risk management.
• Application: Predicts general violence risk.
• Limitations: Static focus, requires dynamic context.

Risk Assessment: Sexual Recidivism

• Tools:
  • Static-99R: Static factors (e.g., offense history).
  • STABLE-2007: Dynamic factors (e.g., social supports).
• Use: Sentencing, civil commitment decisions.
• Prosecutor Role: Scrutinize scoring, contextual relevance.

Psychological Instruments: Overview

Standardized tools for objective forensic assessments in Kansas courts.

• Categories: Cognitive, personality, risk, competency.
• Examples: WAIS-5, MMPI-3, Static-99R, STABLE-2007, ECST-R.
• Role: Enhance reliability, inform legal decisions.

WAIS-5: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (5th Edition)

Measures adult intellectual functioning across multiple domains.

• Subtests:
  • Verbal Comprehension (e.g., vocabulary).
  • Visual-Spatial (e.g., block design).
  • Fluid Reasoning, Working Memory, Processing Speed.
• Scores: Full Scale IQ, index scores.

WAIS-5: Forensic Applications

• Competency: Evaluates cognitive ability to understand legal process.
• Mitigation: Low IQ (e.g., <70) may reduce culpability.
• Challenges: Cultural bias, test familiarity effects.
• Prosecutor Role: Examine subtest discrepancies, normative data.

MMPI-3: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (3rd Edition)

Broad assessment of personality and psychopathology.

• Format: 335 true-false items, 30-50 minutes.
• Scales:
  • Validity (response accuracy).
  • Clinical (e.g., psychosis, depression).
  • Specific problems, personality.

MMPI-3: Validity Scales

• Function: Detect response distortions.
• Key Scales:
  • F, Fp: Infrequent responses (exaggeration).
  • L: Lie (overly positive self-presentation).
  • K: Correction (defensiveness).
• Prosecutor Role: Challenge profiles with elevated validity scores.

MMPI-3: Clinical Scales

• Major Scales:
  • Scale 2 (D): Depression (sadness, hopelessness).
  • Scale 6 (Pa): Paranoia (suspiciousness).
  • Scale 8 (Sc): Schizophrenia (psychotic symptoms).
• Interpretation: Elevations suggest specific disorders.
• Limitations: Context-dependent, requires expert analysis.

MMPI-3: Forensic Applications

• Mental Disease Defense: Identifies psychosis for K.S.A. 21-5209.
• Mitigation: Documents emotional distress, personality disorders.
• Prosecutor Strategy:
  • Question scale elevations vs. collateral evidence.
  • Challenge over-interpretation of subclinical scores.

Static-99R and STABLE-2007

• Static-99R: 10 static factors (e.g., prior sex offenses, victim gender); predicts sexual recidivism.
• STABLE-2007: 13 dynamic factors (e.g., impulsivity, intimacy deficits); enhances risk prediction.
• Use: Sentencing, supervision planning.
• Prosecutor Role: Verify factor scoring, challenge outdated data.

ECST-R: Revised Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial

• Format: Updated 82-item structured interview, replacing ECST.
• Domains:
  • Factual Understanding (e.g., court roles, charges).
  • Rational Understanding (e.g., plea consequences).
  • Consulting with Counsel (e.g., working with attorney).
• Use: Aligns with Dusky standard, enhanced reliability.
• Prosecutor Role: Review item responses, challenge clinical interpretations.

MMPI-3 vs. PAI: Comparison and Contrast

• MMPI-3 (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3):
  • 335 items, 30-50 min, broad psychopathology focus.
  • Strength: Extensive validity scales (F, L, K).
  • Weakness: Length, potential cultural bias.
• PAI (Personality Assessment Inventory):
  • 344 items, 40-60 min, balanced personality/clinical focus.
  • Strength: Shorter scales, user-friendly scoring.
  • Weakness: Fewer validity indicators.
• Key Difference: MMPI-3 emphasizes psychopathology depth, PAI balances personality and clinical utility.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Overview

Claims of deficient legal representation impacting case outcomes.

• Legal Basis: Strickland v. Washington (1984).
• Kansas Law: K.S.A. 60-1507 (post-conviction).
• Forensic Issues: Omitting evaluations, ignoring test results.

Ineffective Assistance: Strickland Standard

• Requirements:
  • Deficient Performance: Unreasonable attorney conduct.
  • Prejudice: Likely altered case outcome.
• Examples: Not requesting ECST-R, overlooking MMPI-3 psychosis.
• Prosecutor Role: Defend reasonable strategic decisions.

Practical Considerations for Prosecutors

• Review Reports: Check MMPI-3/PAI validity, WAIS-5 subtest alignment.
• Cross-Examination: Challenge Static-99R/STABLE-2007 errors, ECST-R subjectivity.
• Ethics: Ensure impartiality, standardized tool use.
• Collaboration: Consult experts on WAIS-5, MMPI-3/PAI interpretations.

Competency Comparison: Herbert Y Background

Case: State v. Herbert Y (CRG-2022-CR-303, Crawford County)

• Defendant: 62-year-old male, charged with First Degree Murder, Aggravated Assault on LEO.
• Offense: Strangled wife, fled police (Oct 2022).
• History: Stable employment (33 years), no prior criminal record; schizophrenia diagnosis, Osawatomie hospitalization (March 2022).
• Context: Family reported paranoia, delusions post-COVID (2021).

Competency Comparison: Herbert Y Evaluation

• Diagnosis: Other Specified Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorder.
• Findings:
  • WAIS-II: Average IQ (108).
  • MMPI-3: Defensive profile, no clinical elevations.
  • Behavior: Uncooperative (nudity, refusing DNA), delusional (“God above judge”).
• Collateral: Hospital records, family reports of psychosis.

Competency Comparison: Herbert Y Analysis

• Dusky Criteria:
  • Understanding: Impaired by delusions, paranoia.
  • Assisting Counsel: Limited by uncooperative behavior, memory gaps.
• Strengths: Average intellect, intact autobiographical memory.
• Weaknesses: Psychotic symptoms disrupt rational engagement.
• Prosecutor Considerations: Verify psychosis severity, treatment potential.

Competency Comparison: Herbert Y Outcome

• Likely Finding: Incompetent (K.S.A. 22-3302).
• Rationale: Psychotic symptoms impair rational understanding, ability to assist counsel.
• Next Steps: Court-ordered treatment (e.g., antipsychotics).
• Prosecutor Role: Monitor treatment progress, re-evaluate competency.

Competency Comparison: Balthazar Z Background

Case: State v. Balthazar Z (2023-DV-1247, Johnson County)

• Defendant: 42-year-old male, charged with Attempted Capital Murder, Aggravated Arson.
• Offense: Stabbed family, set fire to home (Sept 2023).
• History: Ministry worker, no prior criminal record; financial stress, depression since 2020.
• Context: Impending foreclosure, kept secret from family.

Competency Comparison: Balthazar Z Evaluation

• Diagnosis: Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Depressed Mood and Anxiety.
• Findings:
  • WAIS-II: Average IQ (103).
  • MMPI-3: Valid profile, elevated depression, hopelessness.
  • Behavior: Cooperative, coherent, intact memory (except offense fragments).
• Collateral: Family interviews, medical records (Zoloft use).

Competency Comparison: Balthazar Z Analysis

• Dusky Criteria:
  • Understanding: Intact, grasps charges and process.
  • Assisting Counsel: Able to communicate, strategize.
• Strengths: Cognitive clarity, cooperation, no psychosis.
• Weaknesses: Emotional distress, partial amnesia (stress-related).
• Prosecutor Considerations: Assess amnesia claims, emotional stability.

Competency Comparison: Balthazar Z Outcome

• Likely Finding: Competent (K.S.A. 22-3302).
• Rationale: Rational understanding, ability to assist counsel despite distress.
• Next Steps: Proceed to trial or plea negotiations.
• Prosecutor Role: Monitor for changes in mental state, challenge amnesia.

Mental Disease Comparison: Chip Michaels Background

Case: State v. Chip Michaels (22-CR-438, Doonesbury County)

• Defendant: 29-year-old male, charged with First Degree Murder.
• Offense: Killed wife by beating, stabbing (May 2022).
• History: Multiple psychiatric hospitalizations, schizophrenia diagnosis; prior DUIs, domestic battery.
• Context: Religious delusions, stopped antipsychotics pre-offense.

Mental Disease Comparison: Chip Michaels Evaluation

• Diagnosis: Schizophrenia.
• Findings:
  • WAIS-II: Below Average IQ (79).
  • Behavior: Delusions (God’s command), auditory hallucinations during interview.
  • Statements: “Lord told me she was asleep,” “resurrection” not murder.
• Collateral: Police reports, prior hospital records.

Mental Disease Comparison: Chip Michaels Analysis

• K.S.A. 21-5209 Criteria:
  • Mental Disease: Schizophrenia with active psychosis.
  • Intent Impairment: Delusions drove actions, negated intent.
• Strengths: Clear psychotic symptoms, consistent history.
• Weaknesses: Possible substance influence (prior history).
• Prosecutor Considerations: Challenge voluntary medication cessation, intent evidence.

Mental Disease Comparison: Chip Michaels Outcome

• Likely Finding: Not guilty by reason of mental disease (K.S.A. 21-5209).
• Rationale: Psychosis negated intent to commit murder.
• Next Steps: Commitment to treatment facility (K.S.A. 22-3429).
• Prosecutor Role: Ensure strict oversight, public safety measures.

Mental Disease Comparison: Chad White Background

Case: State v. Chad White (SA-2024-CR-300, Anonymous County)

• Defendant: 43-year-old male, charged with Criminal Threat, Unlawful Request for Emergency Service.
• Offense: Threatened staff, pulled fire alarm (May 2024).
• History: TBI from 1997 car accident, disability; prior drug convictions.
• Context: Frustration over phone access, interpersonal conflict.

Mental Disease Comparison: Chad White Evaluation

• Diagnosis: Major Neurocognitive Disorder due to TBI, Unspecified Depressive Disorder.
• Findings:
  • WAIS-II: Extremely Low IQ (67).
  • MCMI-IV: Dependent personality, no psychosis.
  • Behavior: Coherent, no delusions/hallucinations.
• Collateral: Disability records, staff statements.

Mental Disease Comparison: Chad White Analysis

• K.S.A. 21-5209 Criteria:
  • Mental Disease: Neurocognitive disorder, not psychotic.
  • Intent Impairment: Cognitive deficits did not negate intent.
• Strengths: Clear intent in threats, no psychotic symptoms.
• Weaknesses: Cognitive limitations may affect judgment.
• Prosecutor Considerations: Argue intent based on verbal clarity, context.

Mental Disease Comparison: Chad White Outcome

• Likely Finding: K.S.A. 21-5209 defense rejected.
• Rationale: Neurocognitive disorder insufficient to negate intent.
• Next Steps: Proceed to trial or plea; consider mitigation (K.S.A. 21-6815).
• Prosecutor Role: Highlight intentional behavior, oppose defense.

Questions and Discussion

Thank you for your attention!

Please share your questions or scenarios for discussion.

Contact: flesherm@swbell.net | 913-220-3282