IN U.S. V. MASTHERS, THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED A DISTRICT COURT'S SUMMARY DENIAL OF A MILDLY RETARDED DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA. THE MOTION WAS SUMMARILY DENIED BECAUSE, UNDER THE TRADITIONAL STANDARD OF COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL, MILD MENTAL RETARDATION DOES NOT BY ITSELF RAISE SUFFICIENT DOUBT OF A DEFENDANT'S COMPETENCE. THE COURT OF APPEALS ESTABLISHED A STANDARD UNDER WHICH A DEFENDANT'S UNDERSTANDING OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS MUST BE ASCERTAINED BY MEASURING ABSTRACT INTELLIGENCE, AND ABSTRACT INTELLIGENCE ITSELF DETERMINED BY PERFORMANCE ON STANDARDIZED TESTS. THE DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CHARGED WITH ROBBERY, ARMED ROBBERY, AND ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON, SPOKE COHERENTLY AND WITH A MODICUM OF LEGAL SOPHISTICATION WHEN HE PLEADED GUILTY. ONLY AFTER BEING TESTED FOR A PRESENTENCE REPORT WAS HIS 'TRUE' INTELLIGENCE DISCOVERED. THE AUTHOR EXAMINES THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN A CASE-BY-CASE ANALYSIS....MSP