Insanity Defense Reform Act Of 1984

27 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Cameron
  907 F.2d 1051· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-01 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a motion for hospitalization, filed before trial, did not constitute a sufficient offer of proof for an insanity defense when the exclusion of evidence was based on a procedural failure to provide adequate notice. The court also noted that the district court's
• United States v. Newman
  849 F.2d 156· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-27 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the government's failure to produce a witness's statement did not violate the Jencks Act because the statement was not adopted by the witness, and the admission of prior convictions was proper for impeachment purposes.
• United States v. Bartlett
  856 F.2d 1071· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-08 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the subsequent federal prosecution was proper, the district court did not err in refusing a specific diminished capacity instruction, and the confession was admissible. The court affirmed the conviction.
• United States v. Twine
  853 F.2d 676· 9th Cir.· 1988-08-01 ·cited 26×
  The Ninth Circuit held that the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 did not abolish the diminished capacity defense and that the statutes under which the defendant was convicted require specific intent, allowing for the defense.
• United States v. Pohlot
  827 F.2d 889· 3d Cir.· 1987-08-25 ·cited 25×
  The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 does not prohibit the use of evidence of mental abnormality to negate mens rea, but it does bar affirmative defenses like diminished capacity.
• United States v. Kidder
  869 F.2d 1328· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-15 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendant's constitutional challenges to the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) were without merit, and affirmed the district court's imposition of the minimum sentence.
• United States v. Owens
  854 F.2d 432· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-06 ·cited 23×
  A federal criminal defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on insanity if the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to find insanity with convincing clarity.
• United States v. Frank
  956 F.2d 872· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-03 ·cited 22×
  A jury should be instructed on the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity when properly raised, unless the defendant requests otherwise.
• United States v. Neavill
  868 F.2d 1000· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err by refusing to instruct the jury on the defendant's disposition if found not guilty by reason of insanity.
• United States v. Whitehead
  896 F.2d 432· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-22 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the insanity defense because the evidence did not establish with convincing clarity that the defendant was legally insane at the time of the robbery.
• United States v. Freeman
  804 F.2d 1574· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-04 ·cited 16×
  The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, including its burden of proof and expert testimony restrictions, is constitutional. The defendant failed to establish insanity by clear and convincing evidence.
• United States v. COX
  826 F.2d 1518· 6th Cir.· 1987-08-21 ·cited 13×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a belated insanity defense notice, that the psychiatrist's testimony did not violate Fed.R.Evid. 704(b), and that the defendant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance
• United States v. Thigpen
  4 F.3d 1573· 11th Cir.· 1993-10-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that trial judges should not instruct juries on the consequences of a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict, as jurors should not be concerned with the consequences of their verdicts. The dissenting opinion argued that jurors are concerned and that the lack of i
• United States v. Edwards
  819 F.2d 262· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the psychiatrist's testimony explaining the defendant's financial problems and motivations was permissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) because it provided medical information to the jury, rather than stating an opinion on the ultimate issue of sanity
• United States v. Amos
  803 F.2d 419· 8th Cir.· 1986-10-16 ·cited 8×
  The Insanity Defense Reform Act, which shifts the burden of proving insanity to the defendant by clear and convincing evidence, does not violate the Fifth Amendment's due process clause.
• In re Newchurch
  807 F.2d 404· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-18 ·cited 5×
  A district court cannot commit a defendant to the Attorney General's custody for a mental examination solely because the defendant intends to plead insanity, without first determining that such commitment is necessary for the government to adequately prepare its case.
• United States v. Samuels
  801 F.2d 1052· 8th Cir.· 1986-09-24 ·cited 5×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the defendant was sane at the time he wrote and mailed the threatening letter to the President.
• United States v. Marble
  940 F.2d 1543· D.C. Cir.· 1991-08-06 ·cited 4×
  A district court must allow a competent defendant to accept responsibility for a crime, even if they may have been suffering from a mental disease, and must honor the competent defendant's choice not to raise the insanity defense.
• United States v. Thamin Shawar
  865 F.2d 856· 7th Cir.· 1989-01-06 ·cited 4×
  A district court must commit a defendant found incompetent to stand trial to the custody of the Attorney General for evaluation, regardless of the likelihood of recovery or the defendant's dangerousness.
• United States v. Byrd
  834 F.2d 145· 8th Cir.· 1987-11-25 ·cited 4×
  The Insanity Defense Reform Act, which places the burden of proving insanity on the defendant, is constitutional as applied to bank robbery charges. The court also affirmed the district court's adherence to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29.1 regarding closing arguments.
• United States v. Knott
  894 F.2d 1119· 9th Cir.· 1990-01-26 ·cited 3×
  Voluntary intoxication, even when combined with a mental disease or defect, cannot be considered in determining an insanity defense under the Insanity Defense Reform Act.
• United States v. LaFROMBOISE
  836 F.2d 1149· 8th Cir.· 1988-01-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Insanity Defense Reform Act's provisions for commitment of individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity do not violate due process or equal protection by failing to mandate periodic adversary hearings or continuous legal representation.
• United States v. Rosenheimer
  807 F.2d 107· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant failed to present sufficient evidence of a mental disease or defect to warrant a finding of insanity under the pre-1984 standard, and thus the government was not required to prove sanity.
• United States v. Pendergraft
  120 F. Supp. 2d 1339· M.D. Fla.· 2000-10-12
  The court held that expert testimony regarding a defendant's personality disorder, which explains behavior but does not negate the ability to form specific intent (mens rea), is not relevant and therefore inadmissible under Daubert.
• United States v. Austin
  981 F.2d 1163· 10th Cir.· 1992-12-22
  The court held that the admission of expert testimony regarding the defendant's mental state was not plain error and that Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) is constitutional.