Dusky v. United States

362 U.S. 402, 80 S. Ct. 788, 4 L. Ed. 2d 824, 1960 U.S. LEXIS 1307
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedApril 18, 1960
Docket504 M
StatusPublished
Cited by3,172 cases

This text of 362 U.S. 402 (Dusky v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S. Ct. 788, 4 L. Ed. 2d 824, 1960 U.S. LEXIS 1307 (1960).

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 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State of Washington v. Scott Emerson Evatt
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2017
State v. Stewart
Supreme Court of Kansas, 2017
Jeffrey Martin Reid v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2017
Petetan, US Carnell Jr. A/K/A Carnell Petetan, Jr.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2017
Nagi v. People
2017 CO 12 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2017)
State v. Griffith
2016 Ohio 8510 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2016)
Com. v. Mesa, J.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2016
United States v. Bent
654 F. App'x 11 (Second Circuit, 2016)
United States v. Ghane
593 F.3d 775 (Eighth Circuit, 2010)
Zink v. State
278 S.W.3d 170 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2009)
State v. McNeil
963 A.2d 358 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2009)
Samayoa v. Ayers
649 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (S.D. California, 2009)
State v. Lane
669 S.E.2d 321 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2008)
McMurtrey v. Ryan
539 F.3d 1112 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Garcia
282 F. App'x 14 (Second Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Guerrero
279 F. App'x 29 (Second Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Wolfson
616 F. Supp. 2d 398 (S.D. New York, 2008)
United States v. Schlueter
276 F. App'x 81 (Second Circuit, 2008)
Pizzuto v. State
202 P.3d 642 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
362 U.S. 402, 80 S. Ct. 788, 4 L. Ed. 2d 824, 1960 U.S. LEXIS 1307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dusky-v-united-states-scotus-1960.