DUSKY v. UNITED STATES, 362 U.S. 402 (1960)
U.S. Supreme Court
DUSKY v. UNITED STATES, 362 U.S. 402 (1960)
362 U.S. 402
DUSKY v. UNITED STATES.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 504, Misc.
Decided April 18, 1960.
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.
James W. Benjamin for petitioner.
Solicitor General Rankin for the United States.
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." [362 U.S. 402, 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.
Dusky is the foundational case establishing the standard for competency to stand trial. It is cited in virtually every study and publication discussing competency, and it is the basis for the most common and frequent type of forensic assessment conducted by psychologists. In addition to its description of the standard, this case is of interest for its sparse language, and it is notable for the fact that it provides no foundation, explanation or reasoning for the ruling.
In other words, it gives no hint as to why a defendant might have a right to be competent.
What it does, however, is to clearly establish that competency is not equivalent to mental disorder. Mental disorder is required for a finding of incompetence, but it is not the disorder itself that forms the basis for a finding of incompetence. Instead, the mental disorder must serve to create an independent condition - the loss of a particular psycho-legal capacity that is defined in terms of the ability to understand the proceedings and the ability to consult rationally with counsel.