Service Offerings

An evaluation of a defendant’s competency to stand trial provides an opinion on whether, (due to mental illness or developmental disorder) a defendant lacks a factual and rational understanding of the proceedings against them, and/or does not possess the ability to consult with legal counsel and assist in their own defense. While most initial competency evaluations are conducted by state evaluators, the court may specifically request a private evaluator to conduct the evaluation. It is also common for private evaluators to conduct second-opinion evaluations, when an objection is raised regarding the initial report.

Psychodiagnostic evaluations provide diagnostic clarity, comprehensive treatment recommendations, and evaluation of individual clinical needs. Such evaluations can be conducted for individuals in the criminal or civil system, and can be useful when an individual is seeking a second opinion regarding a diagnosis or when a treatment provider requires a more thorough assessment to diagnose and treat an individual under their care.

Colorado Statute defines a person who is Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) as “A person who is so diseased or defective in mind at the time of the commission of the act as to be incapable of distinguishing right from wrong with respect to that act” or “A person who suffered from a condition of mind caused by mental disease or defect that prevented the person from forming a culpable mental state that is an essential element of a crime charged” (CRS § 16-8-101.5). All sanity evaluations include an evaluation of a defendant’s competency to proceed. For individuals charged with a class 1 or 2 felony, or felony sex offense, video recording of the evaluation is required and must be preserved.

Risk assessment is concerned with the identification of individual factors that are known to exhibit association with violent, sexual, or recidivistic behaviors. While the evaluation of established risk factors can aid in predicting, managing, and mitigating an individual’s future risk, a person’s specific future risk of violence and/or recidivism also depends on situational factors that cannot be known in advance. Assessment of an individual’s risk can be conducted as a standalone evaluation, or can be embedded in a larger report (e.g., sentencing mitigation).

Risk assessments are routine in the area of conditional release evaluations for defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). Once a defendant has been found NGRI and committed to a forensic hospital, the burden of proof rests with the defendant to prove by preponderance of the evidence that no abnormal mental condition exists that would be likely to cause the defendant to be dangerous either to himself or herself or to others or to the community in the reasonably foreseeable future. As such, a conditional release evaluation speaks to clinical diagnosis as well as risk for future violence. Such evaluations are routinely conducted by the state, however individuals can also request and submit independent evaluations alongside those conducted by the state.

In the state of Colorado, the District Attorney’s office may elect to charge and sentence a juvenile offender in adult district court, given particulars surrounding the nature of the alleged offense, individual criminal history, and provided the juvenile is 16 years of age at the time of the incident. This strategy is known as a “direct file.” In response, defense counsel may submit a motion to have the juvenile “reverse transferred” to juvenile court. In these cases, the court is statutorily required to consider several factors including:

1. The age of the juvenile and the maturity of the juvenile as determined by considerations of the juvenile’s home, environment, emotional attitude, and pattern of living;

2. The current and past mental health status of the juvenile as evidenced by relevant mental health or psychological assessments or screenings that are made available to both the district attorney and defense counsel;

3. The likelihood of the juvenile’s rehabilitation by use of the sentencing options available in the juvenile courts and district courts.

Sentencing mitigation reports are generally requested by defense counsel to provide the court with a summary of potential mitigating factors within an individual’s history and to provide context for their current and historical functioning. Such evaluations are often utilized when a defendant is unlikely to meet statutorily defined criteria for mental condition or sanity defenses, but exhibits mental health symptoms, substance use, or other personal issues that may have impacted behavior around the time of the alleged offenses.

Fitness for duty evaluations are tailored to the specific demands, role, and responsibilities of the individual being evaluated. In general, such assessments require thorough record review, administration of psychological testing, and occasionally risk, or threat assessment. The content and structure of the evaluation is tailored to the needs and requirements of the institution requesting the assessment.

Under certain circumstances a report or testimony may not be required. Forensic case consultation is a behind-the-scenes approach to answering questions regarding case direction, empirical research in the areas of clinical and forensic psychology, sources of error or bias in forensic mental health evaluations, and psychological testing.