Statements (48)
Predicate | Object |
---|---|
gptkbp:instanceOf |
legal case
|
gptkbp:caseOutcome |
remanded for further proceedings
|
gptkbp:caseTypes |
No. 2
criminal law case |
gptkbp:citedBy |
362 U.S. 402
|
gptkbp:court |
reversed lower court's ruling
Supreme_Court_case |
gptkbp:decidedBy |
gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court
|
gptkbp:historicalEvent |
involved prior mental health evaluations
|
https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Dusky v. United States
|
gptkbp:impact |
set a precedent for mental health evaluations
|
gptkbp:judges |
Justice_Black_dissenting_opinion
Justice_Potter_Stewart_authored_opinion |
gptkbp:jurisdiction |
federal jurisdiction
|
gptkbp:legalStatus |
competency to stand trial
defendant represented by counsel influenced mental health law Dusky standard competency must be assessed at trial defendant found incompetent |
gptkbp:notableFeature |
case has implications for mental health professionals
Dusky appealed the ruling Dusky had a history of mental illness Dusky was charged with a crime case addressed due process rights case emphasized ability to assist counsel case emphasized understanding of proceedings case established a two-pronged test for competency case has been cited in numerous subsequent cases case has implications for civil rights case has implications for criminal justice system case involved constitutional rights case involved mental competency standards case is often referenced in legal education competency was questioned during trial important for defendants with mental illness Supreme_Court_reviewed_the_case trial_court_ruled_Dusky_competent Supreme_Court_found_errors_in_the_trial_court's_decision |
gptkbp:outcome |
established standards for competency
|
gptkbp:politicalAffiliation |
gptkb:United_States
Dusky |
gptkbp:precedent |
competency standards in criminal law
|
gptkbp:relatedPatent |
gptkb:Indiana_v._Edwards
gptkb:Godinez_v._Moran gptkb:Pate_v._Robinson |
gptkbp:significance |
influenced future competency evaluations
|
gptkbp:year |
1960
|