Dr. Fetterolf has served as a court-appointed expert, working with attorneys in state and federal courts to provide his expertise on a range of psycho-legal matters. He has evaluated individuals with charges ranging from trespassing to sex offenses and murder.
Adjudactive Competence
Assessing competency to stand trial is among the most common forensic evaluations conducted in criminal courts. It serves as a fundamental safeguard of a fair legal process, ensuring that defendants have the cognitive ability to understand the charges they face and to participate meaningfully in their defense. Subjecting individuals to trial without this capacity would be unjust, given the demands and pressures of the criminal justice system.
In Dusky v. United States (1960), the US Supreme Court established the three basic prongs required for competency to stand trial: (1) factual understanding of the proceedings; (2) rational understanding of the proceedings; and (3) rational ability to consult with counsel.
A competency to stand trial evaluation includes an assessment of the defendant’s mental state, a structured interview to evaluate competency, a review of the individual’s medical, psychiatric, social, and developmental history, and an examination of relevant discovery materials and prior records. Dr. Fetterolf uses the Competency Assessment Instrument (CAI), a structured interview tool designed to assess a defendant’s understanding and abilities related to courtroom proceedings, consistent with the requirements of the Dusky standard.
Disorders commonly associated with impairments in competency to stand trial include schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, dementia and other neurocognitive disorders, as well as intellectual disability. Competency can also be influenced by the physiological effects of medications, substance use, and other medical conditions.
Along with assessing competency to stand trial, these evaluations may also address whether the individual's competency can be restored. Courts may specifically request an opinion on whether involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication is appropriate to aid in restoring the defendant’s competency. Dr. Fetterolf’s opinions are reinfroced by the AAPL Guidelines on Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial.
Criminal Responsibility
Assessing criminal responsibility is a central aspect of forensic psychiatric evaluations in criminal cases. These evaluations determine whether a defendant, due to a mental disorder, lacked the ability to understand the nature or wrongfulness of their actions at the time of the alleged offense. This protects the integrity of the legal system by ensuring that individuals who could not meaningfully appreciate their behavior are not held criminally liable in the same way as those who could.
The legal definition of insanity varies by jurisdiction. Many states apply the M'Naghten standard, which considers whether the defendant was unable to understand the nature and quality of their act or to know it was wrong. Some jurisdictions incorporate additional criteria, such as the ability to conform one’s conduct to the law. Disorders commonly associated with impaired criminal responsibility include schizophrenia, bipolar disorder with psychotic features, major depressive disorder with psychotic features, substance-induced psychosis, and severe neurocognitive conditions. Dr. Fetterolf has particular expertise in other, albeit rare, trauma-related disorders (e.g., post-traumatic stress [PTSD] and dissociative disorders) that may also affect criminal responsibility.
A criminal responsibility evaluation includes a psychiatric assessment focused on the defendant’s mental state at the time of the offense, review of discovery materials, medical and psychiatric records, and application of the relevant legal standard. Dr. Fetterolf grounds his evaluations in clinical analysis and best practices as outlined in the AAPL Guidelines for Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of Defendants Raising the Insanity Defense.
Sexually Violent Offenders
Sexual offense allegations often lead to questions not only about criminal responsibility, but also about future risk, mental abnormality, and volitional control. I conduct evaluations in cases involving sexual violence to assist courts in determining whether a diagnosable psychiatric condition contributed to the behavior and whether the individual meets criteria for designation as a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) under Pennsylvania law.
These evaluations are structured, evidence-based, and grounded in careful review of the defendant’s mental health history, developmental background, and risk profile. When applicable, I use structured risk-assessment tools (e.g., SVR-20, STATIC-99), psych and conduct diagnostic interviews to assess for paraphilic disorders, personality pathology, or neurodevelopmental conditions such as autism spectrum disorder.
Dr. Fetterolf’s approach is especially suited for complex or contested cases, where clarifying the distinction between high-risk and situational behavior is essential. I also provide mitigation opinions in cases where trauma, psychiatric illness, or developmental disability may inform a more individualized and proportionate sentencing approach