Slow, Expensive, and Out of Control: A Statutory Solution to the Competency Crisis

The United States Constitution guarantees both the right to a speedy trial and the right to be competent to stand trial. United States Supreme Court decisions have recognized both of these rights but left the hard work of implementing them to legislatures and rulemakers. After turning the technicalities over to the states, the Supreme Court has generally stayed out of the business of setting bright-line rules to follow, both for setting speedy trial limits and ensuring defendants are evaluated and restored to competency. This delegation has led to a dual crisis. Cases are not resolved on time, and a substantial body of academic work has discussed that crisis. Defendants who have competency concerns are not cared for in a timely matter and have been known to languish for days, weeks, months, and even years without being evaluated or treated. The intersection of the competency crisis and the speedy trial crisis demands a solution. The solution is not coming from the Supreme Court, and it is only rarely hinted at by the lower courts. While a scholarly survey of speedy trial laws and rules concluded that many states have speedy trial waivers for competency concerns built into their laws, this Article delves further into that particular component, revealing that nearly every state has a statute, rule, or case that waives speedy trial limits for those seeking competency evaluations and restoration. Inspired by one outlier state, Montana, this Article proposes a speedy trial statute that sets out bright-line limits for competency evaluation and restoration. Montana charges “institutional delay” as time against the state, and so does the rule set out in this Article. But this Article proposes to do so through an objective rule with strict numerical deadlines. The proposed rule also offers a safety valve and compromise of counting institutional delay not as harshly as other delays. This problem needs a solution. The courts appear to have no appetite for a constitutional one. This Article continues the conversation about speedy trial statutes without leaving those least able to defend themselves behind.