Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Competency Evaluations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate panel hears bill to allow second competency evaluations in criminal cases
Summary
A bill that would authorize a second court-ordered competency evaluation when a defendant is found not competent drew debate in the Senate Judiciary Committee about cost, timing and how frequently the option would be used; the measure was ultimately passed by indefinitely (PBI).
Senator Jennifer Diggs introduced Senate Bill 1405, which would allow the Commonwealth to seek a court-ordered second competency evaluation when a defendant is found not competent to stand trial.
The bill’s sponsor said the measure is intended to address situations in which a first evaluation may not fully account for all available information and where a second opinion could validate findings or reveal malingering, shortening unnecessary restoration services. “We would just like to have a second look at this,” Diggs said, explaining that the change would bring competency reviews closer to the parity that exists for insanity evaluations.
Commonwealth’s Attorney Nate Green, testifying for the Virginia Association of Commonwealth’s Attorneys, described the logistics: the second evaluation “would be ordered through the court, and so it would be paid for by the court in the same way the first order was as well. It would just be a different qualified evaluator.” Office of the Executive Secretary staff confirmed that evaluations are paid from the criminal fund and are not assessed as court costs, a point that drew follow‑up from committee members concerned about who bears the cost.
Opponents and skeptical members pressed whether a second evaluation might lengthen pretrial confinement. Committee members were told that an evaluation should be completed in days and that lengthy restoration (which can take months) would not automatically follow from ordering a second evaluation. Alyssa Patton of the Office of the Executive Secretary told the committee that evaluations are paid from the criminal fund and are not charged to the defendant as court costs.
Committee members also discussed how often the new authority might be used. Nate Green said he expected prosecutors would use the option sparingly, when there is evidence that calls the first evaluation into question, rather than routinely. Senator Carol Foy raised speedy‑trial concerns and asked whether extra time for a second evaluation would count toward statutory speedy‑trial limits; the committee was told those evaluation periods would not count toward the defendant’s speedy‑trial clock when the Commonwealth seeks the evaluation.
Given mixed concerns and further questions about implementation and cost, the committee moved the bill to be passed by indefinitely (PBI).
