Dusky v. United States

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1960 United States Supreme Court case

English Wikisource has original text related to this article:

**Dusky v. United States **

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

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dusky_v._United_States&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

Milton Dusky, a 33-year-old man, was charged with assisting in the kidnapping and rape of an underage female. He clearly had 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

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dusky_v._United_States&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: 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

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dusky_v._United_States&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: 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 them.
• The defendant must have the ability to aid their attorney in their 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 competence to represent oneself (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

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dusky_v._United_States&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: See also")
]

• List of criminal competencies

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 362

• _Faretta v. California _, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)

• _Ford v. Wainwright _, 477 U.S. 399 (1986)

• _United States v. Binion _, 900 S.W.2d 702 (2005)

References

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dusky_v._United_States&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: References")
]

1. 1 2 3 Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).  This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document .
2. 1 2 3 "Assessment of Competency and Sanity" . Archived from the original on June 4, 2007. Retrieved October 5, 2007.
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

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dusky_v._United_States&action=edit&section=6 "Edit section: External links")
]

• Text of Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)

United States criminal due process case law

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dusky_v._United_States&oldid=1351943367 "

Categories :

• United States Supreme Court per curiam opinions

• Adjudicative competence case law

• United States Supreme Court cases

• United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court

• [United States Supreme Court cases i

…