The effect of witnesses, attorneys, and judges on civil commitment in North Carolina: a prospective study

A total of 388 commitment hearings were observed and analyzed for demographic information on patients, name of judge, duration of hearing, identities of those present and those actually testifying, outcome of any procedural challenges, and concurrence of the judges with attorney and physician recommendations. Age, race, and gender of the patient were found to have no significant effect on the outcome of the cases. Disposition of the cases correlated with recommendations by physicians, witnesses, and state attorneys in an overwhelming number of cases. Possible harmful influences of plea-bargaining in commitment hearings are discussed.     

Judicial oversight of release of patients committed after being found not competent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity in violent crimes

In 1981, North Carolina joined a growing number of states in passing legislation requiring judicial concurrence with discharge decisions for civilly committed patients who had been found either not competent to proceed to trial or not guilty by reason of insanity. The authors studied all such patients at one of North Carolina's four state mental hospitals during the first year of the new law's operation, and found that there were only 16 of them. These patients were compared to a control sample of civilly committed patients without criminal charges; it was found that the forensic patients spent longer in the hospital than the controls, but still significantly less time than reported in studies from other states. The authors discuss possible reasons for these differences and comment on the effectiveness of such legislation.