Legal Precedents

An understanding of the standard for adjudicative competency in juvenile court requires familiarity with three landmark decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, which are discussed below.

DUSKY V. UNITED STATES, 362 U.S. NO. 402 (1960)

…the Court concluded that “a federal court in which criminal proceedings are pending to make a finding regarding the mental competency of the accused to stand trial, may not make a determination that an accused is mentally competent merely because he is oriented to time and place and has some recollection of events; the test must be whether the accused 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 a factual understanding of the proceedings against him.”

JACKSON V. INDIANA, 406 U.S. 715 (1972)

…the Court concluded: “[a] person charged by a State with a criminal offense who is committed solely on account of his incapacity to proceed to trial cannot be held more than the reasonable period of time necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that he will attain that capacity in the foreseeable future. If it is determined that this is not the case, then the State must either institute the customary civil commitment proceeding that would be required to commit indefinitely any other citizen, or release the defendant. Furthermore, even if it is determined that the defendant probably soon will be able to stand trial, his continued commitment must be justified by progress toward that goal.”

IN RE GAULT, 387 U.S. 1 (1967)

…In his opinion, Fortas observed that “being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court.” He further opined that “due process of law is the primary and indispensable foundation of individual freedom. It is the basic and essential term in the social compact which defines the rights of the individual and delimits the powers which the state may exercise.”