Dusky v. United States
Encyclopedia
Dusky v. United States, (per curiam), is a landmark decision
affirming a defendant's right to have a competency evaluation
before proceding to trial. In this case, the court outlined the basic standards for determining competency.
Milton Dusky, a 33 year old man, was charged with assisting in the rape of an underage female and kidnapping. 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 United States Supreme Court, the petitioner requested that his conviction be reversed on the grounds that he was not competent to stand trial at the time of the proceeding.
in the United States
. Although the statutes addressing competency vary from state to state in the United States
, the two elements outlined in the Dusky v. United States decision are held in common: The defendant must understand the charges against him and must have the ability to aid his attorney in his own defense.
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 v. United States, outlined above.
Landmark decision
Landmark court decisions establish new precedents that establish a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially change the interpretation of existing law...
affirming a defendant's right to have a competency evaluation
Competency evaluation (law)
In the United States criminal justice system, a competency evaluation is an assessment of the ability of a defendant to understand and rationally participate in a court process....
before proceding to trial. In this case, the court outlined the basic standards for determining competency.
Milton Dusky, a 33 year old man, was charged with assisting in the rape of an underage female and kidnapping. He was clearly suffering from schizophrenia
Schizophrenia
Schizophrenia is a mental disorder characterized by a disintegration of thought processes and of emotional responsiveness. It most commonly manifests itself as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking, and it is accompanied by significant social...
but was found Competent to Stand Trial and received a sentence of 45 years.
On petition of writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, the petitioner requested that his conviction be reversed on the grounds that he was not competent to stand trial at the time of the proceeding.
Decision
Upon reviewing the evidence, the court decided to grant the writ of certiorari. The court ruled that to be competent to stand trial 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." 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.Significance
This case set the current standard for adjudicative competenceAdjudicative competence
Adjudicative competence, also referred to as competence to stand trial, is a legal construct describing the criminal defendant's ability to understand and participate in legal proceedings. This includes the defendant's current ability to participate in various pleas and waivers of rights. It is...
in the United States
United States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
. Although the statutes addressing competency vary from state to state in the United States
United States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
, the two elements outlined in the Dusky v. United States decision are held in common: The defendant must understand the charges against him and must have the ability to aid his attorney in his own defense.
Subsequently, in Godinez v. Moran
Godinez v. Moran
Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 , was a landmark decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if a defendant was competent to stand trial, they were automatically competent to plead guilty or waive the right to legal counsel.-Circumstances:...
(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 v. United States, outlined above.
See also
- List of criminal competencies
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 362
- Faretta v. CaliforniaFaretta v. CaliforniaFaretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.-Facts of the case:...
, - Ford v. WainwrightFord v. WainwrightFord v. Wainwright, ', was the case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the common law rule that the insane cannot be executed; therefore the petitioner is entitled to a competency evaluation and to an evidentiary hearing in court on the question of his competency to be...
, - United States v. BinionUnited States v. BinionUnited States v. Binion, 132 F. App'x 89 , is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit applied two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions United States v. Binion, 132 F. App'x 89 (8th Cir. 2005), is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth...
, 900 S.W.2d 702 (2005)