Constitutional and Judicial Foundations for Competency-Related Assessment in Criminal Forensic Neuropsychology.

This article focuses on the foundational knowledge and ethical requirements for clinical neuropsychologists consulting in criminal cases involving competency to proceed through the adjudication process. It reviews key aspects of the U.S. criminal justice system, pertinent Constitutional Amendments (First, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth), and landmark case law—including Dusky v. United States (1960), which established the standard that defendants must have a rational and factual understanding of proceedings and the ability to consult with counsel to be deemed competent. The article emphasizes the distinction between clinical capacity and legal competency, highlights ethical considerations such as protecting defendants’ Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination during evaluations, and underscores the importance of specialized training, jurisdictional knowledge, and use of standardized assessment tools for neuropsychologists working in forensic contexts.