High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles! In Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the standard for competency to stand trial was not linked to the standard for competency to represent oneself. The Court had recognized these two rights separately for some time. In Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960), and in Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975), the Court established the standard for competency to stand trial—the defendant must have a "rational and factual understanding" of the nature of the proceedings, and must be able to rationally assist his lawyer in defending him. In Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), the Court held that a criminal defendant cannot be forced to have a lawyer if he does not wish it, but that before the defendant relinquishes his right to counsel the trial judge must ensure that the defendant understands the "dangers and disadvantages" of representing himself. With the decision in Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993), the Court held that a defendant may not plead guilty (and thereby waive both his right to counsel and his right to represent himself) without first being found competent to waive the right to counsel. Until Edwards, however, it remained an open question whether a criminal defendant could be simultaneously competent to stand trial and yet not competent to represent himself. The Court answered that question in the affirmative.