Has any one had a defendant raise Alzheimer's in an attempt to avoid conviction? And, if so, do you have any transcripts of the testimony? I see an analogy to a claim of diminished capacity. Anyone disagree?

Wouldn't Alzheimer's render the defendant incompetent to stand trial?

Maybe. I'm not that knowledgeable about it. After onset, can't you have any periods of lucidity? I thought even President Reagan had better days earlier on?

Does the DSM (whatever number we are now on) cover it? I don't have a copy.

My understanding of Alzheimer's is that it's episodic. People have good days and bad days. I'm sure that a defendant was having a bad day when they committed the crime, but will conveniently have a good day to be competent to stand trial. I think in that manner it would be less like a diminished capacity (such as mental retardation) and more like episodic mental illness (such as manic depression or schizophrenia).

However, my dealings with Alzheimer's patients is mostly limited to involuntary commitments- which is certainly a strategy that you could use in that sort of case.

I believe it is a form of dementia, which is a progressive condition. In its early stages, it would be more episodic. As it progresses, episodes become the status quo. Also, I don't believe every cognitive function goes at once. For example, I believe early screening tests distinguish between memory and executive functions. As it progresses, a person can become more angry, easily agitated, etc.

Family usually observes a lot of disturbing behavior. They will have to choose between dropping mom in the grease but then having to ratchet up their level of care, or taking the position that she isn't that bad and can continue to care for herself. I believe the doctor has an obligation to report patients who are not competent to drive--which may argue for a level of competency if not reported.

If I were being asked for a plea bargain, I would want to have a lot of medical data. If there was a diagnosis, there should be a battery of tests/MRIs/psychological assessments etc. that spported it.

AB makes some good points. It would depend where in the progression of the disease your defendant is. If it's very early, he might have some good days and bad days, but as the disease progresses, it's mostly bad. You need to get that defendant examined for both competency and sanity and get medical records for the defendant. You don't mention how old the defendant is, whether you're dealing with an elderly person or a relatively younger person with early-onset Alzheimer's. There is no definitive diagnosis of Alzheimer's until there's an autopsy, but a neurologist can come as close as anyone to a diagnosis. The defendant should have had an MRI or CT scan or some testing for Alzheimer's. Look at the records to see if the defendant is on Aricept or Namenda or other Alzheimer's medications. If no medical records exist and it's just the defendant's attorney or family saying it, either they need to ge the defendant to a doctor ASAP, or I'd suspect malingering. (If you want to know more, go to alz.org.)

Jane is right on target, as usual.