Dusky v. United States
- Decided
- April 18, 1960
- Docket
- 504 M
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,197 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that the proper test of competency to assist in one’s defense is whether the defendant has “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” — United States v. Donald Friedman (2004)
- holding that a person is competent to stand trial if he understands the proceedings and is able to assist counsel in his defense — Howard v. Gittere (2019)
- concluding no retrospective competency determination could be held "[i]n view of the doubts and ambiguities regarding the legal significance of the psychiatric testimony" — Billy Keith McGregor v. Gary Gibson, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary (2001)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. Upon consideration of the entire record we agree with the Solicitor General that “the record in this case does not sufficiently support the findings of competency to stand trial/' for to support those findings under 18 U. S. C. § 4244 the district judge “would need more information than this record presents.” We also agree with the suggestion of the Solicitor General that it is not enough for the district judge to find that “the defendant [is] oriented to time and place and [has] some recollection of events,” but that the “test must be whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding — and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” [*403] In view of the doubts and ambiguities regarding the legal significance of the psychiatric testimony in this case and the resulting difficulties of retrospectively determining the petitioner’s competency as of more than a year ago, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of conviction, and remand the case to the District Court for a new hearing to ascertain petitioner’s present competency to stand trial, and for a new trial if petitioner is found competent.
It is so ordered.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.