🫥
Criminal Procedure • 14th Amendment
CRIMPRO#043
Legal Definition
A defendant is not competent to stand trial where they lack a rational and factual understanding of the charges and proceedings or they lack present ability to consult with their lawyer.
Plain English Explanation
This is best simplified by explaining the case where the rule comes from: Dusky v. United States (1960).
Dusky was a 33 year old man with a prior diagnosis of "Schizophrenic Reaction, Chronic Undifferentiated Type". He had a history of visual hallucinations, depression, and alcoholism. While being psychiatrically treated in a hospital, his wife left him for his brother. One night, Dusky was forced to sleep in his car, drank two pints of vodka, and took a number of tranquilizers. The next day, while driving with friends of his son, he picked up a girl the friends knew and drove her across state lines to sexually assault her. Dusky was arrested and claimed to have no memory of the crime. He was evaluated by two doctors, one of which found that Dusky didn't have a complete memory of the day of the assault, another finding that Dusky had begun to develop hallucinations and paranoid beliefs that his arrest was part of a conspiracy to frame him.
Dusky was found guilty, and his conviction was upheld by the Eighth Circuit. However, the Supreme Court overturned his conviction on the grounds that Dusky's mental condition prevented him from being able to sufficiently consult with his lawyer, and also prevented him from being able to understand the criminal proceedings against him.
Another way to look at this is that when someone is found guilty of a crime, justice requires that they have some mental ability to appreciate and participate in the legal process. If they lack such a mental ability, then they are not "competent to stand trial". Note, however, if they later regain competency, then a trial can resume.
Dusky was a 33 year old man with a prior diagnosis of "Schizophrenic Reaction, Chronic Undifferentiated Type". He had a history of visual hallucinations, depression, and alcoholism. While being psychiatrically treated in a hospital, his wife left him for his brother. One night, Dusky was forced to sleep in his car, drank two pints of vodka, and took a number of tranquilizers. The next day, while driving with friends of his son, he picked up a girl the friends knew and drove her across state lines to sexually assault her. Dusky was arrested and claimed to have no memory of the crime. He was evaluated by two doctors, one of which found that Dusky didn't have a complete memory of the day of the assault, another finding that Dusky had begun to develop hallucinations and paranoid beliefs that his arrest was part of a conspiracy to frame him.
Dusky was found guilty, and his conviction was upheld by the Eighth Circuit. However, the Supreme Court overturned his conviction on the grounds that Dusky's mental condition prevented him from being able to sufficiently consult with his lawyer, and also prevented him from being able to understand the criminal proceedings against him.
Another way to look at this is that when someone is found guilty of a crime, justice requires that they have some mental ability to appreciate and participate in the legal process. If they lack such a mental ability, then they are not "competent to stand trial". Note, however, if they later regain competency, then a trial can resume.
Related Concepts
How can a defendant prove ineffective assistance of counsel?
How may a defendant withdraw a guilty plea?
What are the procedural limitations on death penalty statutes?
What happens if a pre-trial identification technique is too unnecessarily suggestive?
What is the 6th Amendment Right to a Speedy Trial, and how is a violation of this right determined?
What is the effect of the 14th Amendment right to due process on self-incriminating statements?
What is the proper procedure for submitting a guilty plea?
What is the prosecutorial duty to disclose exculpatory information?
What is the right to a jury trial?
What is the right to an unbiased judge?
What is the right to confront witnesses?
What must you generally know about grand jury proceedings?
When are bail issues appealable?
When is a co-defendant's confession admissible when it implicates another defendant?
When may a defendant be denied the right to counsel?
When may a defendant represent themself?
