Relates to determining the capacity of a defendant to stand trial

Showing the cosponsors who are on Agora, A to Z. The official record may list more.

• Democratic12
• Republican5

This bill has cosponsors from more than one party.

Shown in neutral colors by design; Agora is non-partisan.

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Samra Brouk says this is needed

Currently section 730 of the Criminal Procedure Law provides that defendants charged with felonies who are mentally ill or developmentally disabled and are determined by a court to be unable to understand the charges against them or participate in their own defense are sent to state operated forensic hospitals or developmental institutions solely for the purpose of trying to restore them to competency so they can stand trial. The cost of these services is over $1000 per day charged to the county in which the court which sent them is located. In many cases, the judge issuing the order truly believes that he or she is helping the defendant to obtain treatment services for their mental disability. This is not the case because restoration services are geared to making the defendant legally able to stand trial and are not aimed at recovery from the underlying illness. Indeed, in many cases the defendant is sent for restoration at a cost of about $360,000 per year to the county and returns to have the charge reduced to a misdemeanor and ultimately dismissed. The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Jackson v. Indiana (406 US 715) has held that holding a person in this manner for a period of time long- er than necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probabili- ty that he or she will attain capacity to stand trial in the foreseeable future is unconstitutional. The case of Bitter v. Surles, (144 Misc. 2d 945) has also held that certain parts of CPL 730 are unconstitutional. This bill seeks to make clear what restoration services are and to limit their use to those situations in which they are likely to be effective. It also amends those sections of law which have been held to be uncon- stitutional.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.