If the court determines that a further assessment of the defendant’s competency is warranted, it issues an order to that effect. If the case is in a court of limited jurisdiction (as is the case in almost all traffic offense cases), the case is referred to the Superior Court for the evaluation of the Rule 11 defendant.
The Supreme Court will then appoint two psychiatrists to conduct an independent competency assessment. The assessed person can choose one of the doctors. The High Court will also set a date for holding a jurisdiction hearing after the assessments have been completed. If the defendant does not cooperate with the assessments, the court will issue a warrant directing law enforcement to locate the defendant and involuntarily arrest him.
Arizona Rule 11 Hearing
Start Transcript Hello! My name is Cindy Castillo with Castillo Law. Today I want to talk to you about Rule 11 assessments.
Basically, in a Rule 11 proceeding, a doctor decides whether or not he can assist your counsel in your defense and whether or not he genuinely understands the proceeding against you. Doctors usually ask if you understand what the role of a judge is, or what the role of the jury, your defense attorney, or the prosecution is. You will also be asked questions such as, “Do you understand what a plea agreement or jury trial is?”
What happens at a rule 11 hearing?
Typically, the process involves two doctors examining the accused to assess their level of knowledge. Typical questions can be:
- How well do you understand the procedures?
- What is the role of a jury in a criminal trial?
- Do you know the nature of a defense agreement?
- Are you fully aware of the charges against you?
The Purpose of Rule 11
The US legal system is based on a contradictory scenario. This accusatory system is believed to be the best way to bring about true justice. In the state of Arizona, Rule 11 is intended to help ensure that each defendant has the mental capacity to understand what is happening so that this adversarial system can function properly.
It is believed that a defendant must have at least enough realism to understand what is happening to them before it is fair for the state to exercise its powers against them. If a person is found to lack a basic understanding of what is happening to them, they should not be tried or punished according to normal legal standards. Whether or not this individual is prosecuted for information found against them or for a complaint filed, they must still be considered mentally competent.