End date 1960 | ||
Full case name Milton Dusky v. United States Citations 362 U.S. 402 (more)
80 S. Ct. 788; 4 L. Ed. 2d 824; 1960 U.S. LEXIS 1307 Similar Godinez v Moran, Riggins v Nevada, Ford v Wainwright, In re Gault, Ake v Oklahoma | ||
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. In this case, the court outlined the basic standards for determining competency.
Contents
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 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 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." 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 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 Dusky v. United States decision are held in common: The defendant must understand the charges against him or her and must have the ability to aid his or her attorney in his or her own defense, although see Felthous (2011), who argues that many state statutes—and the federal statute—do not incorporate the rationality standard enunciated in Dusky).
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.