What is required to prove a criminal defendant is legally insane? Each state has its own laws and rules about its legal definition of insanity, but there are some general concepts that can be used to understand what it means to be legally insane. It is important to note that the insanity defense is rarely used and has even been abolished in some states. Insanity is generally considered an "excuse" to committing a crime. An excuse defense is where, even though the defendant engaged in criminal conduct, he is excused from legal responsibility because of some condition in the defendant. Insanity is also considered to be an "affirmative defense." An affirmative defense is one in which the defendant must affirmatively assert the defense and produce some evidence supporting it. For some affirmative defenses in some states, the defendant also has the burden of proving the defense is true. Defendants are generally presumed to be sane, so a prosecutor does not need to prove the defendant was sane unless the defendant puts his sanity into question. Once it is put into question, either the prosecution must prove the defendant was sane beyond a reasonable doubt or the defendant must prove he was insane by a preponderance of the evidence. In some states the defendant must enter a special plea, such as not guilty by reason of insanity. Some states have a separate sanity phase where the jury determines the defendant's sanity after it has decided he committed the charged crime. The focus of determining a defendant's sanity is his mental condition at the time of the crime. (This is one way the test for insanity is different than the test for competence to stand trial. For a discussion of the differences between sanity and competency, check out this prior post.) To be found insane, the defendant must show that he suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time he committed the crime. Generally, the mental disease or defect may be permanent or temporary. The M'Naghten TestThe defendant's mental condition must satisfy the legal standard for insanity. The M'Naghten test is traditionally the most commonly used test to determine insanity. Under the M'Naghten test, a person is considered legally insane if: 1. at the time of the crime 2. he suffered from a defect of reason that resulted in him either a. not knowing the nature and quality of the act he performed, or b. not knowing his act was wrong. A defendant knows the nature of his act if he knows what act he is performing. He knows the quality of his act if he understands the consequences that flow from his act. For example, a woman is charged with murdering her baby by drowning. To prove she was legally insane, she must prove that because of a defect of reason, she either did not know she was holding her baby's head underwater, or did not know that holding the baby's head underwater would result in him drowning. Alternately, the defendant can show she did not know that her act was wrong. The term "wrong" in this context may mean either legally wrong or morally wrong, depending on the state. In the above example, if the woman knew she was holding her baby's head underwater and understood this would cause the baby to drown, but she believed she must do so to rid him of the devil, she would assert that she did not know her act was wrong. This would be an example of a moral wrong. Insane DelusionsIf someone suffers from delusions because of a defect of reason, they may be able to assert the insanity defense, depending on the nature of the delusion. If the delusion was to a fact that, if true, would have justified the defendant's acts, he could assert the insanity defense. If, however, the delusion was to a fact that, if true, would not have justified the defendant's acts, he may not be considered insane. For example, the defendant was delusional and believed the victim was holding a gun when in fact e was holding a pen. The victim pointed the pen at the defendant, who believed he was about to be shot. The defendant pulled out a gun and shot the victim. The defendant could assert the insanity defense because, had the victim really pointed a gun at him, he would have been justified in shooting the victim in self-defense. However, if the defendant's delusion was that the victim tricked him out of his money, and he shot the victim in revenge, he would not be considered legally insane because, even if his belief was true, tricking someone out of their money does not justify shooting them. Irresistible Impulse TestThe irresistible impulse test is sometimes used in conjunction with the M'Naghten test. Under this test, the defendant must have a defect of the mind that makes it impossible for him to control his actions. It is not sufficient to meet this test if someone is overcome by anger, jealousy, or other strong emotions. (Such passion may be sufficient to reduce a killing from murder to voluntary manslaughter, but it cannot be a complete defense.) Model Penal Code TestAnother test for insanity is set out by the Model Penal Code. Under this test a person is considered insane if, because of a mental disease or defect, the person did not have the capacity to: 1. understand the criminality or wrongfulness of his conduct, or 2. to conform his conduct to the law. This is sometimes called the "policeman at the elbow test." In other words, if the person would have committed the act even if there had been a police officer at her elbow watching her, she is considered unable to have understood the wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the law. A defendant's sanity may be proven by either medical professionals or by lay (non-expert) witnesses. Lay witnesses may testify about the defendant's behavior around the time of the crime to help the jury determine whether the defendant was sane or insane at the time of the crime. To understand the differences between insanity and competency to stand trial, click here. Claim your free E-book on The Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery, and Legal Drama.
When it comes to investigating and prosecuting crime, federal and state agencies are parts of separate governments. Each state is also separate from all the other states. These are called jurisdictions.
The federal government is limited in what crimes it is allowed to investigate and prosecute. There must be federal jurisdiction before the federal government can get involved. Most street crimes, like murder, do not involve federal jurisdiction.
The federal government may have jurisdiction if an otherwise state crime occurs on federal property, or involves federal officials, or crosses state lines.
The states and federal government also have separate law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies. At the federal level, the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office are primarily involved in investigating and prosecuting federal crimes.
Each state has state law enforcement officers, as well as local city police departments and county sheriff's departments. Most states also have state attorneys general, district attorneys, and city attorneys who prosecute state crimes.
Often in movies and TV shows, the local police department will get offended when the FBI comes into their jurisdiction. The show "Criminal Minds" handles this issue regularly.
Criminal Minds follows a team of FBI profilers who help track and catch serial killers. Most episodes have the team called in by a local police department that needs the team's expertise on recent crimes.
The agent in charge of the Criminal Minds profiling team often stresses the importance of being invited by the local police department and working cooperatively with them once there. This is because the FBI generally has no jurisdiction to investigate local murders, even multiple murders. The FBI, as a federal agency, has limited jurisdiction to investigate federal crimes.
The specialized profiling team on Criminal Minds, therefore, would generally analyze evidence from their unique perspective and help educate the local police department about the person they are looking for.
One episode of Criminal Minds (Season 2, ep. 22 “Legacy”), helps show this concept and demonstrates the difference between state and federal jurisdictions.
Detective McGee from the Kansas City Police Department contacts the Criminal Minds team for help when he believes at least 63 homeless people have disappeared. Because these people have not turned up dead and no one has reported them missing, however, there are no open files and no active local investigation into the matter.
The following conversation takes place about the FBI team's ability to work on the case: | AGENT HOTCHNER: Simply being gone isn’t a federal issue.
AGENT GIDEON: We’re gonna need an official invitation into your jurisdiction.
DETECTIVE MCGEE: An official?
AGENT HOTCHNER: Police chief, chief of detectives. It has to come down from the chain of command. We have no authority to look into this.
DETECTIVE MCGEE: Um, I don’t know that I can do that.
AGENT HOTCHNER: Unless we’re officially asked, we can’t help you.
AGENT HOTCHNER: Jurisdictional issues aren’t open for debate. Sorry. It’s out of our hands.
AGENT JAREAU: Hotch, there could be 63 victims here.
AGENT HOTCHNER: Well, I suppose you and I could go back with the detective and talk to his commanders. Try to impress upon them the serious implications.
DETECTIVE MCGEE: Thank you.
AGENT HOTCHNER: If we get an invitation, we could send for the rest of you. I just don’t want to give the appearance that we’re running over them.
| |
Upon unofficially reviewing some of the evidence and recognizing a potentially serious threat, Agent Prentiss expresses frustration at the team’s hands being tied because of jurisdictional concerns. Agent Morgan reminds her, “If we don’t follow the city’s jurisdiction, no one’s ever going to ask us for help.” These scenes demonstrate how delicate the balance of power between different law enforcement agencies can be. It also exemplifies the limited role of the federal government when it comes to investigating and prosecuting crime. Unless there is some federal aspect of the case that gives the feds jurisdiction, they have no authority. Later in the episode, when Agent Hotchner meets with the detective’s commander, the commander declines the FBI’s help, claiming there is no case to investigate. He does not consider the unexplained and unreported disappearance of several homeless people a crime. It is then discovered that a taunting letter from the potential suspect was mailed to Detective McGee from Kansas City, Missouri, whereas the people went missing from Kansas City, Kansas. This interstate communication gave the FBI jurisdiction to investigate the crimes on their own without invitation from the local authorities. In this scenario, both the federal government and the local authorities had jurisdiction to investigate the same crimes. This is called concurrent jurisdiction. Bank robbery and drug sales are common areas of concurrent jurisdiction, where both the federal and state governments have jurisdiction. And since the federal and state governments are separate governments, each could potentially prosecute the suspect once he was caught. Typically, however, someone is only prosecuted by either the state or the federal government, even where both have jurisdiction. As a side note, the U.S. Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause does not forbid both the federal and state governments from prosecuting the same person for the same crime because they are separate sovereigns. Click here to receive a free eBook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.
There are two basic requirements to defining activity as a crime. 1) The activity must be forbidden by law (the law may also require something to be done). 2) There must be some penalty attached to conducting the activity. In every state, the legislatures have enacted criminal codes. A state's criminal code is the primary place to determine what activities are crimes. However, crimes may be defined in other places than the criminal code. For example, in California, some crimes are contained in the Vehicle Code. Federal crimes have been enacted and defined by Congress. Again, however, some federal crimes are not contained in the United States Criminal Code. Tax crimes, for example, are contained in the Internal Revenue Code. There is therefore no one place to find all the crimes of a particular jurisdiction. Also, many criminal laws have been interpreted by the courts. Therefore, even a reading of a state's criminal codes will not give someone all the answers about how a crime is defined and what activity falls within that definition. That is one of the many reasons a criminal defendant is entitled to a lawyer. Someone who is uneducated in the law will have a very difficult time interpreting and understanding all the details that make up a law. Also, every crime that is defined in the law has two basic components: *an act, and * a mental state In law, the Latin terms are used: actus reas (act) and mens rea (mental state). That concept, and specifically the contours of a criminal state of mind, is discussed further here. For more information like this delivered to your inbox, join The Criminal Law Community. If you are a writer of filmmaker in the crime or legal genres, check out the free eBook: Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.
Generally, a defendant's or witness's out of court statements are not admissible to prove their truth in court. This is the hearsay rule. There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule, however, including an adoptive admission. An adoptive admission is generally where the defendant, knowing the content of an accusation against him, adopts the truth of the accusation by his words or conduct. This often comes up when the police plant someone in a jail cell with or next to the suspect. The cellmate will ask the suspect questions about the crime. The suspect may simply agree with the cellmate or may boast about his crimes. For example, let's say the defendant makes a statement, "Yeah, man, that guy didn't know who he was messing with." That statement is admissible by itslef as an admission. But it becomes much more powerful as an adoptive admission when it is coupled with the cellmate's question, "You shot the guy because of the way he looked at you?" Sometimes a defendant can adopt an accusation by his silence. If someone is accused of a crime under circumstances where he could hear, understand, and reply to the accusation, and he does not respond, both the accusation and his response (or lack thereof) may be admitted in court. The prosecutor can argue from this that the defendant admitted the crime. Similarly, if the defendant responds to an accusation in a way that is evasive or equivocal, that can be admitted in court. The factors to look for to determine if silence can be admitted as an adoptive admission include: 1. whether the accusation was made in the defendant's presence; 2. whether the defendant heard and understood the accusation; 3. whether, in the circumstances, the defendant naturally would have denied the accusation; and 4. whether the defendant could deny but didn't. The idea behind an adoptive admission by silence is that most people, if falsely accused of a crime, would immediately deny it. When someone does not deny it, that is an indication that the person has a guilty conscience. A person's own words, or under these circumstances, their lack of words, can be powerful evidence against the defendant. On an important note, if there is an indication that the defendant's silence was based on him invoking his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment, his silence cannot be used against him. For interesting criminal law concepts sent to your inbox, join the Criminal Law Community.
Corpus delicti is a latin phrase, which literally means, "body of crime." In law, it is the principle that there must be evidence that a crime actually occurred before someone can be convicted of the crime. The issue of a corpus delicti comes up when there is a confession to a crime. If someone confesses to a crime, that person cannot simply be arrested and charged for that crime. The police must first determine whether the crime actually occured. (You might think this is a strange scenario, but people falsely confess all the time!) Most states have a rule that a defendant's confession, standing alone, is not enough to prove him or her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, the defendant's statement may not even be admissible in court until the prosecution has first presented some other evidence that the crime occurred. This is called corroborating evidence. As an example, let's say someone walks in to the police station and confesses that he killed a prostitute ten years ago. Based on the person's description of the crime (exactly when, where and how it occurred), the police would have to check old reports. They would check if there were any prostitutes killed in the time, place and manner described. Or, if the body was never found, the police would have to look through missing person's reports from that time and place. The confessing person may need to lead police to where the body was hidden or dumped or otherwise disposed of. Although it is sometimes possible to convict someone of murder with no dead body, as discussed in a prior post, in a case like this, a body would almost certainly be needed. For more interesting criminal law facts, news, and information, as well as special giveaways and promotions, delievered to your email, join the Criminal Law Community!
To aid and abet means to aid, help, facilitate, promote, instigate, or encourage another person to commit a crime. The other person who commits the crime is called the direct perpetrator. To be found guilty under a theory of aiding and abetting, the defendant generally must know of the direct perpetrator's criminal purpose, must intend to aid and abet the perpetrator, and must do or say something that in fact aids and abets the crime. Someone who aids and abets a crime is generally just as guilty as the direct perpetrator. This is true whether the aider and abettor had a minor role in the crime or was the most culpable person. Examples of aiding and abetting include someone who is a lookout, who drives the getaway car, or who stays with the direct perpetrator during the crime as show of force or to help give the direct perpetrator courage to commit the crime. An aider and abettor can also be someone who orders the direct perpetrator to commit the crime (like a senior gang member directing a junior gang member to commit a crime). The aider and abettor does not need to be present when the crime occurs. On the flip side, mere presence at the scene of a crime, standing alone, is not enough to find someone guilty as an aider and abettor. If someone only helps the direct perpetrator after the crime has been completed, such as by hiding the person, or destroying or disposing of evidence, that person is an accessory after the fact, not an aider and abettor. If someone intends to aid and abet one crime, but a different crime occurs, the aider and abettor may still be guilty of that other crime, if the other crime was reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances. This is called the natural and probable consequences doctrine. For more interesting criminal law definitions, discussions, news stories and tidbits delivered to your inbox, join the Criminal Law Community.
We hear about this all the time. Someone is accused of a crime or suspected of a crime or charged with a crime. They are brought into court or before Congress or into a grand jury. They refuse to answer questions, invoking the Fifth Amendment. This can be called, pleading the Fifth, taking the Fifth, or invoking the Fifth. It may also be called invoking you right to remain silent. The witness can use any of these phrases, or they can say, "I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me." If the witness is worried about public perception, they may also insert the phrase, "On the advice of my lawyer..." The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." What this means is that the government has to build a case against you, using evidence that does not come from your mouth. Of course, you can waive this right and talk to the police, and give them a bunch of evidence to use against you if you want. And many, many people do exactly that. But you have a constitutional right not to do so if you don't want to.
Get more information like this sent to your inbox by joining the Criminal Law Community.
I remember before law school watching legal television shows or movies. When an attorney would object at trial, the judge would rule, either "sustained," or "overruled." I had to really concentrate and think it through to figure out what the ruling meant. Now, it's second-nature to me. Here's a quick guide for those who aren't in court everyday: Sustained: When an objection is sustained, the judge has determined that is a valid objection. That means the question was improper under the rules of evidence. The witness may not answer the question. (If the witness answers anyway, that answer may be "stricken.") An easy way to remember this is Sustained = Stop, as in the witness must stop and not answer the lawyer's prior question. Overruled: When an objection is overruled, the judge has determined the objection is invalid. The question may stand. The witness must then answer the question. A shorthand way to remember this is Overruled = Ongoing, as in the witness may continue as if the objection never occurred. Hope this helps!
For more information about some of the differences between the way things happen in fictionalized legal proceedings and in real life, get my free Writer's Guide: Top 7 Mistakes Made By Writers of Mystery, Crime and Legal Drama.
I added an article about where to draw the line between simply thinking about or planning a crime, and doing enough to be convicted of an attempt. What is an attempted crime? Learn about what constitutes an attempt, as well as other criminal law concepts, in the Resources section. Also, sign up for a FREE Writer's Guide: 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.
Most people are familiar with a trial jury. A trial jury is usually made up of 12 people who listen to a trial and decide the defendant's guilt or innocence. In law, a trial jury is called a "petit jury," to distinguish it from a grand jury. A grand jury has many differences and similarities with a trial jury. The grand jury is generally much larger, often comprised of at least 23 people. Like a petit jury, a grand jury is made up of regular citizens who respond to a jury summons. The grand jury usually meets once a week for many months or even a year. This schedule is different from a petit jury, which usually meets every court day until a trial is over. The grand jury is an investigative body that can issue subpoenas for witnesses or documents. The evidence is generally presented by prosecutors. The grand jury reviews the evidence and determines whether a person should be charged with a crime, or indicted. A person being investigated, called "a target" of a grand jury, is not allowed to have an attorney present evidence to the grand jury. Neither the target nor the target's attorney may be present in the grand jury proceedings unless subpoenaed (or ordered to testify). A target, if called to testify, or any other witness before the grand jury, may "plead the Fifth," or invoke their right to remain silent. A person may not later be punished for remaining silent because it is a constitutional right. Grand jury proceedings are kept secret until someone is charged. It is therefore possible a target may not know he or she is being investigated. Ostensibly, the grand jury's purpose is to prevent overzealous prosecutors from charging people with crimes without sufficient evidence. However, in reality, grand juries usually follow the prosecutor's lead and do whatever the prosecutor suggests. All federal criminal charges are made through a grand jury. Many states use grand juries as well. States are not required to use a grand jury. States may use other means of "checking" the prosecutor's exercise of charging discretion. For example, in California, prosecutors can use a grand jury, but they usually use a preliminary hearing instead. In a preliminary hearing, the prosecutor presents evidence before a judge, who must decide whether there is probable cause to believe the defendant committed the charged crimes. A defendant may cross-examine witnesses and present evidence at a preliminary hearing, which is different than a grand jury. The role of the grand jury is written into the U.S. Consitution. The Fifth Amendment states in part, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury." Sign up to receive my FREE Writer's Guide: Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.
|
RSS Feed