 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
U. S. v Freeman
U.S. Ct. App. 1986
Author:- Sam Biers
Relevant Facts: Df robbed a bank, allegedly to obtain money for the Ethiopia fund to “Save the Children.” Df used a mask, handgun, and satchel . Df changed his cloths after the robbery to avoid detection, and ran to avoid apprehension.
Legal Issue(s): Whether the Defendant failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that as a result of severe mental disease or defect he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of or wrongfulness of his action at the time he committed bank robbery?
Court’s Holding: Yes, he failed to prove mental defect or disease.
Procedure: Defendant was convicted of the bank robbery before the United States District Court; Court of Appeals affirmed.
Law or Rule(s): A valid insanity defense exists only where df is unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongness of his acts at the time of the offense. Df must prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence.
Court Rationale: The S. Ct of the U. S. has held that a state can constitutionally require a df to prove insanity beyond reasonable doubt. The df is not prohibited from introducing evidence which would assist the jury in determining whether he fulfills the statutory definition of insane. The Act was amended b/c psychiatrists are unable to agree upon the meaning of irresistible impulse. If they are unable to diagnose it is not cruel and unusual for Congress to restrict the defense of insanity to those who are capable of proving that they did not understand the nature and quality of the act committed. Psychiatrist concluded df was suffering from a severe mental illness, but ample evidence indicated that df knew his conduct was wrongful.
Plaintiff’s Argument: Df failed to establish that a mental disease or defect existed at the time of the offense by clear and convincing evidence.
Defendant’s Argument: Df was not sane at the time of the offense and has established his insanity by clear and convincing evidence presented by expert testimony.