362 U.S. 402 (1960), 504, Dusky v. United States

Docket NºNo. 504, Misc.
Citation362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824
Party NameDusky v. United States
Case DateApril 18, 1960
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page 402

362 U.S. 402 (1960)

80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824

Dusky

v.

United States

No. 504, Misc.

United States Supreme Court

April 18, 1960

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Certiorari granted.

Since the record in this case does not sufficiently support the findings of petitioner's competency to stand trial, the judgment affirming his conviction is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for a hearing to determine his present competency to stand trial, and for a new trial if he is found competent. Pp. 402-403.

271 F.2d 385 reversed.

Per curiam opinion.

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 [80 S.Ct. 789] 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.

Page 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.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3453 practice notes
  • 193 F.R.D. 175 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), 99 CIV 11693 WHP, Hirschfeld v. Stone
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 2nd Circuit Southern District of New York
    • May 9, 2000
    ...2685, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993); Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 172, 95 S.Ct. 896, 904, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975); Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 789, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960); accord United States v. Morrison, 153 F.3d 34, 46 (2d Cir.1998); United States v. Nichols, 56 F.3......
  • 365 F.2d 920 (D.C. Cir. 1966), 19436, Hansford v. United States
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
    • July 6, 1966
    ...understanding-- and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.' Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. As noted, there was no suggestion of a claim that this appellant failed to meet that test. The very facts of the instant case, the r......
  • 41 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1994), 92-50467, United States v. Arlt
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    • December 1, 1994
    ...defendant has a 'rational understanding' of the proceedings." Id. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2686; see also Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960) (per Indeed, the Supreme Court's decision in Godinez explicitly forbids any attempt to measure a defendant's c......
  • 56 F.3d 403 (2nd Cir. 1995), 381, United States v. Nichols
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
    • May 26, 1995
    ...and (2) "a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him." Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 789, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960) (per curiam); United States v. Hemsi, 901 F.2d 293, 295 (2d Cir.1990). In the federal courts, competency is dete......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3387 cases
  • 193 F.R.D. 175 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), 99 CIV 11693 WHP, Hirschfeld v. Stone
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 2nd Circuit Southern District of New York
    • May 9, 2000
    ...2685, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993); Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 172, 95 S.Ct. 896, 904, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975); Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 789, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960); accord United States v. Morrison, 153 F.3d 34, 46 (2d Cir.1998); United States v. Nichols, 56 F.3......
  • 365 F.2d 920 (D.C. Cir. 1966), 19436, Hansford v. United States
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
    • July 6, 1966
    ...understanding-- and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.' Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. As noted, there was no suggestion of a claim that this appellant failed to meet that test. The very facts of the instant case, the r......
  • 41 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1994), 92-50467, United States v. Arlt
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    • December 1, 1994
    ...defendant has a 'rational understanding' of the proceedings." Id. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2686; see also Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960) (per Indeed, the Supreme Court's decision in Godinez explicitly forbids any attempt to measure a defendant's c......
  • 56 F.3d 403 (2nd Cir. 1995), 381, United States v. Nichols
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
    • May 26, 1995
    ...and (2) "a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him." Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 789, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960) (per curiam); United States v. Hemsi, 901 F.2d 293, 295 (2d Cir.1990). In the federal courts, competency is dete......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
61 books & journal articles
  • For every action there is a reaction: the procedural pushback against Panetti v. Quarterman.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 49 Nbr. 1, January 2012
    • January 1, 2012
    ...as synonymous). (144.) Bottom v. Bottom, 106 S.W. 216 (Ky. Ct. App. 1907). (145.) Id. at 217; see Leehman, 2 S.D. 171. (146.) 362 U.S. 402 (1960); see 18 U.S.C. [section] 4241(a) (requiring that, upon motion by defendant or government, a competency hearing be held "if there is reasonab......
  • Pro se paternalism: the contractual, practical, and behavioral cases for automatic reversal.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 163 Nbr. 1, December - December 2014
    • December 1, 2014
    ...("[T]he defendant must be present at ... every trial stage, including jury impanelment and the return of the verdict...."). (74) 362 U.S. 402, 402 (i960) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). (75) See 18 U.S.C. [section] 4241(a) (2012) (requiring a competency hearing if......
  • Lost Causes
    • United States
    • Louisiana Law Review Nbr. 65-3, April 2005
    • April 1, 2005
    ...A Comparison of Adolescents' and Adults' Capacities as Trial Defendants, 27 Law & Hum. Behav. 333 (2003). [88] Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S. Ct. 788 (1960). See Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 113 S. Ct. 2680 (1993) (holding that the same standards govern competency to wai......
  • Rejecting the clear and convincing evidence standard for proof of incompetence.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 87 Nbr. 3, March 1997
    • March 22, 1997
    ...(8) Wayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr., Substantive Criminal Law [sections] 4.4(a) (2d ed. 1986). (9) Id. (10) Id. (11) Id. (12) 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (per curiam). (13) Id. (internal quotations omitted). The Solicitor General actually suggested this test in his brief to the Court. Se......
  • Request a trial to view additional results