Preview of Member Only Content
For full access: or Become a Member
Emotional Competence and 'Rational Understanding': A Guide for Defense Counsel
By Terry A. Maroney
The legal standards for adjudicative competence1 appear simple: as the U.S. Supreme Court declared in Dusky v. United States, the substantive test is whether a criminal 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.”2 It is clear, too, that the defendant has a fundamental constitutional right not to be tried, convicted, sentenced, or executed while incompetent,3 and the procedure by which competence is raised and determined is relatively straightforward.4 But this apparent clarity is deceiving. Despite its evident importance5 and solid historical pedigree, adjudicative competence remains surprisingly ill-defined. The substantive meaning of Dusky — notably the distinction between “rational” and “factual” understanding — has escaped significant elaboration. Implementation of Dusky is also highly unpredictable, as it generally falls
Want to read more?
The Champion archive is reserved for NACDL members.
NACDL members, please login to read the rest of this article.
Not a member? Join now.
Or click here to see an overview of NACDL Member benefits.
See what NACDL members say about us.
To read the current issue of The Champion in its entirety, click here.
- Media inquiries: Contact NACDL's Director of Public Affairs & Communications Ivan J. Dominguez at 202-465-7662 or email@example.com
- Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.