But there would likely be a court appointed professional to make the assessment.

If he were found non compis mentis (I believe that is the legal term), I don’t think that gets him out of consequences for any crimes he’s accused of. His defense would have to prove he was mentally impaired at the time of the alleged crimes.

In any case, if he were legally declared non compis mentis in the present moment, then that would set off a domino effect, as his Melania and his kids would then surely go to court to have him removed as head of Trump Inc, and have them appointed in his place to run the family business.

Most crimes have an element of intent / recklessness / knowledge/ purposeful conduct. Mental incompetence can be used to negate this element of a crime as unproven. It can also be used, in some cases, as a complete defense.

Competence to stand trial is different. It comes from constitutional rights -- the ability to defend oneself against charges. It's an aspect of due process, not the underlying substantive charges.

I suspect many of his actions right now reflect mental impairment, but that sort of thing would be harder to demonstrate after the fact.

Or so I suspect. Not an expert on the subject.

to PROVE his state of advanced dementia to make that defense. And it would not be limited to the very basic Montreal Cognitive Test. It would certainly be interesting and potentially devastating in terms of perception to future older politicos in Congress or elsewhere.

As to proving the findings explain EARLIER behavior, dementia is one of those that MIGHT make that more likely, given the documented sundown effect. Because I believe he most likely suffers from Frontotemporal Dementia (FTD), the established consistent course of progression would play in as well. Trying to prove a defendant was suffering from a psychiatric disorder earlier that explained the behavior is far more difficult. Many forms of dementia not only progress, but wax and wane in terms of their impacts early on and over a standard day.

I doubt he will be alive. We need to accept that he will never be personally held accountable for his multiple crimes. However, those that enabled him need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Typically, it would be by defense counsel motion.
It could be brought up by a judge based on observations in the courtroom. (Sleeping; inability to answer questions; presentation). Again, typically, a judge would ask defense counsel, because the defendant is represented. In order to rule, an expert / analysis is typically needed by the court so that there is a factual record.
If the defendant is not competent for trial, there would not be a jury. There would not be a trial.

You are absolutely NOT ignorant. This is actually pretty good lawyering -- which is more about observing and raising the right questions (rather than having the correct answer in our back pockets!)

By the way - this is not legal advice. We're just chatting here about hypotheticals for educational purposes.

Last edited Tue Apr 21, 2026, 06:36 PM - Edit history (1)

I appreciate your response!

I didn't realize this would precede the impanelment of a jury. (Is "impanelment" a word?)

This came up in some trials of Nazi war criminals caught when they were in their 90's - what they did was horrific, but they were too far gone mentally to be tried.