Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

362 U.S. 402

80 S. Ct. 788

4 L. Ed. 2d 824

Docket No. 504, Misc.

Dusky v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1960-04-18

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. The Court outlined the basic standards for determining competency.

Source: Wikipedia ↗

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding”

quoted by 399 later decisions, including White v. Wj Estelle, Feguer v. United States

Cited together with Pate v. Robinson · Drope v. Missouri · Strickland v. Washington

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · 9–0 · Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1960-04-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5,888 later decisions (29 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2026 · most notably Pate v. Robinson (1966), Drope v. Missouri (1975)

1,601 federal appellate · 182 district · 2,569 state decisions — followed in 49 states

1.4k01960197019801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. James W. Benjamin, for petitioner.

Solicitor General Rankin, for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

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, 18 U.S.C.A. § 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.' 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.

¶2

Reversed and remanded with directions.

/362/us/402 · .json · Public domain