Supreme Court of the United States, 1960

Dusky v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided April 18, 1960 · Per Curiam

362 U.S. 402; 80 S. Ct. 788; 4 L. Ed. 2d 824; 1960 U.S. LEXIS 1307 (United States Reports)

Counsel

James W. Benjamin for petitioner., Solicitor General Rankin for the United States.

Cases that cite this one

2875 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

State v. Garfoot (Wis. 1997)
Perry Holloway v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1964)
United States v. Merriweather (United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama 2013)
Godinez v. Moran (Supreme Court of the United States 1993)
Ronald Watson Lafferty v. Gerald Cook, Warden of the Utah State Prison (10th Cir. 1992)
Corley v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 1979)
Indiana v. Edwards (Supreme Court of the United States 2008)
Watts v. Singletary (11th Cir. 1996)
Pruett v. Barry (Colo. 1985)
Martin v. Dugger (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1988)
Robert v. Bruce v. W. J. Estelle, Director, Texas Department of Corrections (5th Cir. 1973)
Maynard v. Boone (10th Cir. 2006)
Corcoran v. State (Ind. 2005)
People v. Davis (Colo. App. 2012)
Gregg v. State (Md. 2003)
TIMOTHY J. v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)
Morris v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)
Matter of WAF (D.C. 1990)
State v. Halder, Unpublished Decision (11-8-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
In re W.A.F. (D.C. 1990)
State v. Osborn (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)
State v. Woodland (Utah 1997)
State v. Holland (Utah 1996)
United States v. Robert Hilton Swanson and Jack Lavoied Phipps (5th Cir. 1978)
United States v. Isaac J. Taylor (4th Cir. 1971)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.