| [1] |
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
|
| [2] |
No. 504, Misc.
|
| [3] |
1960.SCT.40601 <http://www.versuslaw.com>; 362 U.S. 402, 80
S. Ct. 788, 4 L. Ed. 2d 824
|
| [4] |
decided: April 18, 1960.
|
| [5] |
DUSKY
v.
UNITED
STATES
|
| [6] |
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
|
| [7] |
James W. Benjamin for petitioner.
|
| [8] |
Solicitor General Rankin for the United States.
|
| [9] |
Warren, Black, Frankfurter, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, Brennan,
Whittaker, Stewart
|
| [10] |
Author: Per Curiam
|
| [11] |
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.
|
| [12] |
It is so ordered.
|
| [13] |
Disposition
|
| [14] |
271 F.2d 385,
reversed.
|