explaining that the standard for, whether a defendant is competent to stand trial is whether the defendant "has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understandingâ and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him"
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the standard for, whether a defendant is competent to stand trial is whether the defendant "has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understandingâ and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him"
- holding that the standard for competence to stand trial is whether the defendant has “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” and has “a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
- holding that the test of competency is "whether he [the defendant] 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.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
- holding that the constitutional standard for competency to stand trial is whether the defendant 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”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
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.”
*403
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.