Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="vvvvvvv" data-source="post: 1430300" data-attributes="member: 5151">Before Hinckley, the burden was with the prosecution to prove that the defendant was sane beyond a reasonable doubt. However, due to the obvious issues of this being brought to the forefront in Hinckley's case, the burden was shifted to the defense to prove that the defendant was insane beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the specific mental illness cited must be considered "severe". (<a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000017----000-.html" target="_blank">18 U.S.C. § 17</a>)However, according to <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule704" target="_blank">Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b)</a>, expert witnesses called to testify on the mental state of a defendant cannot state an opinion that the defendant had the mental condition at the time of the crime.So it's not an impossibly high standard, it's just a magnitude or two more difficult to get a jury acquittal on the basis of insanity. Keep in mind, though, that the outcome of an insanity case has no bearing on how long the defendant can be committed to a mental facility. <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5221664652529148549" target="_blank">Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354 (1983)</a>.</blockquote>