Document Type


Publication Date



This article examines a difficult question in the representation of mentally impaired criminal defendants: should counsel be obligated to inform the court of doubts about a client's competency to stand trial even though doing so may be contrary to the client's wishes or best interests? Professor Rodney J. Uphoff analyzes authorities that impose such an obligation on defense lawyers, including an American Bar Association Criminal Justice Standard and a recent decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, State v. Johnson. Uphoff concludes that these authorities needlessly undercut the mentally impaired defendant's right to zealous representation. He proposes an alternative ethical model for defense attorneys, in which counsel would make a case-by-case determination.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.