Dusky v. United States, 504
| Decision Date | 18 April 1960 |
| Docket Number | M,No. 504,504 |
| Citation | 80 S.Ct. 788,362 U.S. 402,4 L.Ed.2d 824 |
| Parties | Milton R. DUSKY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America. isc |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. James W. Benjamin, for petitioner.
Solicitor General Rankin, for the United States.
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, 18 U.S.C.A. § 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.'
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.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Billiot v. Epps
...171 L.Ed.2d 345 (2008) (establishing standard for judging competence to conduct own defense); Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960) (per curiam); Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 171, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975) (establishing for judging competence......
-
Snyder v. State
...(internal citations omitted); State v. Soares , 81 Hawai'i 332, 916 P.2d 1233, 1251 (App. 1996) ; Dusky v. United States , 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960) (per curiam); and see Hayes v. State , 599 P.2d 558, 562-63 (Wyo. 1979). deShazer , ¶ 12, 74 P.3d at 1244-45. We contin......
-
Ford v. Tate
..." and a " ‘rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him’ " (quoting Dusky v. United States, 362 U. S. 402, 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960) ).E. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim Regarding Tate's Interview by the Trial Judge's Acquaintance.Tate conte......
-
Jernigan v. Edward
...opinion denying the claim as the basis for the state court analysis. Citing Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 171-72 (1975), and Dusky v. U.S., 362 U.S. 402 (1960), the state appellate court wrote:We conclude the trial court correctly found no substantial basis for ordering a competency hear......
-
The Innocence Checklist
...62 (D.C. 2006); Campbell v. United States, 377 F.2d 135, 136 (D.C. Cir. 1966); Mejia v. United States, 291 F.2d 198 (9th Cir. 1961). 327. 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (per curiam); see Nagell v. United States, 354 F.2d 441, 449 (5th Cir. 1966); GOULD, supra note 100, at 78; cf. United States v. Brod......
-
Defenses and special evidentiary charges
...Incompetency Standard The current incompetency test is based on standards set by the United States Supreme Court. Dusky v. United States , 362 U.S. 402 (1960). §3:1120 When to Impanel a Jury as to Incompetency The trial court should hold a pre-trial or trial hearing without a jury to determ......
-
Emotional competence, "rational understanding," and the criminal defendant.
...approximately 90 percent of all criminal cases in the United States are resolved by means of guilty pleas, rather than at trial."). (3.) 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960) (per (4.) See, e.g., Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 357-60 nn.8-14 (1996); see also Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 405-06 (19......
-
THE REASONABLENESS OF THE "REASONABLENESS" STANDARD OF HABEAS CORPUS REVIEW UNDER THE ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996.
...held to determine whether a defendant should be psychiatrically examined for his competency to stand trial); Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960) (adopting a standard to determine whether a defendant is competent to stand (42.) See Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112 (1935) (ru......