Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Dusky v. United States
362 U.S. 402
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1960-04-18
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- 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”
- holding that a person is competent to stand trial if he understands the proceedings and is able to assist counsel in his defense
- concluding no retrospective competency determination could be held "[i]n view of the doubts and ambiguities regarding the legal significance of the psychiatric testimony"
- noting that the Supreme Court has indicated that the standard above applies to “federal habeas review of state proceedings”
- holding there was not enough evidence in record to support finding of competency, noting doubt and ambiguity regarding legal significance of psychiatric testimony in record
- holding petitioner had an intellectual understanding of the charges against him but his impaired sense of reality substantially undermined his judgment and prevented him from cooperating rationally with his lawyer
- stating that the test for competency is “whether [the defendant] 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”
- vacating murder conviction where interpreter provided defendant with summaries rather than verbatim account of the proceedings
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Dusky v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 3179 opinions
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.