ABSTRACT
This chapter analyzes the interactional production of some of the putative documents of competence and incompetence that are said to be characteristic or "symptomatic" of patients' conditions. Rather than treating them as individuals' characteristics, however, it analyzes them as accomplishments achieved in cooperation with others. Most hearing participants agree that a sure sign of incompetence that often emerges in courtroom proceedings is "crazy talk." Judges and other court personnel also infer competence and incompetence from the manner in which patients deliver their testimony. Public Defenders (PDs) and district attorneys (DAs) thus employ different questioning practices and procedures for soliciting patients' testimony, PDs looking for competence while DAs seek disturbance. PDs try to elicit coherent, responsive testimony that demonstrates the sort of interactional competence that judges require for release to be a viable option. In their own fashion, DAs are as conscientious as PDs in managing cross-examination speech exchanges to achieve their objectives, to have patients display behaviors that might be construed as interactional incompetence.
