This is almost over We'll cut to the chase: We’re running out of time in our annual fundraiser. All we ask is $2.75, or whatever seems right to you this Friday, before you get back to your article. Donate

Thank you, dear donor! Your generosity helps keep Wikipedia thriving. Select "hide appeals" to suppress fundraising messages in this browser for a week, or go back to the appeal if you're still interested in donating.

Close

Dusky v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dusky v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided April 18, 1960
Full case nameMilton Dusky v. United States
Citations362 U.S. 402 (more)
80 S. Ct. 788; 4 L. Ed. 2d 824; 1960 U.S. LEXIS 1307
Case history
Prior271 F.2d 385 (8th Cir. 1959)
Subsequent295 F.2d 743 (8th Cir. 1961)
Holding
The competency standard for standing trial: whether the defendant has "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding" and a "rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him."
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas · Tom C. Clark
John M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan Jr.
Charles E. Whittaker · Potter Stewart
Case opinion
Per curiam
Thank you, dear donor!
Your generosity helps keep Wikipedia thriving. Select "hide appeals" to suppress fundraising messages in this browser for a week, or go back to the appeal if you're still interested in donating.
This is almost over, don't scroll away.
Hi. At midnight tonight, our fundraiser will end, but 98% of our readers don't give. Many think they’ll give later, but then forget. This Friday we humbly ask you to protect Wikipedia’s future with a donation to the Wikimedia Endowment. All we ask is $2.75, or what you can afford. We ask you, humbly: Please don't scroll away. If you are one of our rare donors, we warmly thank you.
Please select a payment method
I already donated

Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed a defendant's right to have a competency evaluation before proceeding to trial.[1] The Court outlined the basic standards for determining competency.[2]

Background[]

Milton Dusky, a 33-year-old man, was charged with assisting in the kidnapping and rape of an underage female. He was clearly suffering from schizophrenia but was found competent to stand trial and received a sentence of 45 years. On petition of writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, the petitioner requested for his conviction to be reversed on the grounds that he was not competent to stand trial at the time of the proceeding.[2]

Decision[]

Upon reviewing the evidence, the court decided to grant the writ of certiorari. The court ruled that to be competent to stand trial the defendant must have a "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding" and a "rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him."[1] The court made clear that a brief mental status exam was insufficient. His case was remanded for retrial, at which time his sentence was reduced to 20 years.[2]

Significance[]

This case set the current standard for adjudicative competence in the United States. Although the statutes addressing competency vary from state to state in the United States, the two elements outlined in the decision are held in common:

  • The defendant must understand the charges against him or her
  • The defendant must have the ability to aid his or her attorney in his or her own defense.[1][3]

Subsequently, in Godinez v. Moran (1993), the Supreme Court held that the competency standard for pleading guilty or waiving the right to counsel is the same as the competency standard for standing trial established in Dusky.[4] In Indiana v. Edwards (2008), however, the Supreme Court made a distinction between competence to waive counsel (CTWC), which was the subject of Godinez, and (CTRO). The majority opinion, authored by Breyer, noted, "In certain instances an individual may well be able to satisfy Dusky's mental competence standard, for he will be able to work with counsel at trial, yet at the same time he may be unable to carry out the basic tasks needed to present his own defense without the help of counsel." However, the court did not actually provide a CTRO standard, opting instead to leave this to legislatures and lower courts.[5]

Felhous (2011) argues that many state statutes and the federal statute do not incorporate the rationality standard enunciated in Dusky, and that various post-Dusky court decisions had not consistently affirmed the rationality standard.[6]

See also[]

References[]

  1. ^ Jump up to: a b c Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960). Public domain This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. ^ Jump up to: a b c "Assessment of Competency and Sanity". Archived from the original on 2007-06-04. Retrieved 2007-10-05.
  3. ^ Grisso, Thomas (1988). Competency to Stand Trial Evaluations: A Manual for Practice (1988 ed.). Sarasota FL: Professional Resource Exchange. pp. 1–23. ISBN 978-0-943158-51-8.
  4. ^ Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993).
  5. ^ Felthous, Alan R.; Flynn, Lauren E. (January–February 2009). "From competence to waive counsel to competence to represent oneself: the Supreme Court advances fairness in Edwards". Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter. 33 (1): 14–17. JSTOR 27898867. PMID 20698084.
  6. ^ Felthous, A. R. (2011). Competence to stand trial should require rational understanding. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 39(1), 19-30. http://www.jaapl.org/content/39/1/19.full

External links[]

Retrieved from ""