Dusky v. United States

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 362 U.S. 402, 4 L. Ed. 2d 824, 80 S. Ct. 788, 1960 U.S. LEXIS 1307, SCDB 1959-066

Decision Date: 4/18/1960

Docket Number: No. 504

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 4 L. Ed. 2d 824, 80 S. Ct. 788, 1960 U.S. LEXIS 1307, SCDB 1959-066 (1960)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1960

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Landmark AuthorityTop 1% most-cited · cited by 2,620 decisions

2,620

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

statute cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

292

278

391

564

593

408

1960s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

Ohio Ct. App.158

9th Cir.118

5th Cir.105

10th Cir.93

Cal. Ct. App.81

6th Cir.79

Most recently cited by10

2026United States v. Specialist Quantique S. Reese A.C.C.A.
2026State v. Allen Kan.
2026People v. Nguyen CA4/3 Cal. Ct. App.
2026In Re Child of Mindy P. Me.
2026United States v. Christopher Bendann 4th Cir.
2026J.A. v. State
2026State v. Terrance Grissom
2026United States v. Richard Brillhart 11th Cir.
2026People v. Bertsch and Hronis Cal.
2026Michael Combs v. Ron Broomfield 9th Cir.

Cites 1 statute

Hospitalization of a convicted person suffering from mental disease or defect

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

DUSKY v. UNITED STATES.

Attorneys

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

majority 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.”

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.