18 U.S.C. § 17
Insanity defense
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 334
cases (32 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Shannon v. United States
Shannon v. United States (1994)
“I A Prior to the enactment of the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 (IDRA or Act), 18 U. S. C. §§ 17 , 4241-4247, federal courts generally did not recognize a verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGI).”
United States v. Long (2009)
“Merits Congress has provided for an affirmative defense of insanity to criminal prosecutions, codified in 18 U.S.C. § 17 , which reads: (a) Affirmative defense.”
United States v. Bridget M. Denny-Shaffer (1993)
“Denny-Shaffer — a victim of multiple personality disorder (MPD) — was insanity within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 17 (a). The trial judge rejected the insanity defense and instructions requested on it at the conclusion of the trial for insufficiency of proof by defendant under §…”
Dixon v. United States (2006)
“2057 , codified at 18 U. S. C. §17 (b). Moreover, Congress has treated the defense of insanity differently from that of duress not only by codifying it but by requiring defendants who intend to rely on an insanity defense to provide advance notice to the Government.”
United States v. Karen Cameron (1990)
“See 18 U.S.C. § 17 (a). In a report dated January 13, 1988, Dr.”
State v. Mott (1997)
“The dissent argues that several federal circuit court cases have considered "the precise issue raised in this case" and have allowed the introduction of evidence rebutting the element of mens rea.”
United States v. John David Bartlett (1988)
“) 2057 (currently codified at 18 U.S.C. § 17 (a)), renders inadmissible all psychiatric testimony not offered in connection with the affirmative defense of insanity.”
United States v. Dupre (2004)
“The Government argues that the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 (“IDRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 17 , requires courts to exclude mental disease evidence other than that used to support a narrowly defined insanity defense.”
United States v. Ewing (2007)
“For this he was indicted on two federal charges and at trial raised a defense under the federal insanity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 17 (a), which provides that a defendant has an affirmative defense if “as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, [he] was unable to appreciate…”
United States v. Polizzi (2008)
“2057 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 17 ). The defense was largely predicated on Pol-izzi’s himself having been repeatedly and severely sexually abused as a child.”
United States v. James A. Kimes (2001)
“In 1984, with passage of the Insanity Defense Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 17 , Congress impliedly placed significant restrictions on the use of mental defect evidence.”
United States v. Titus Bates (2020)
“To best convey when these rare circumstances might arise, we must start with the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 (the “IDRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 17 . The IDRA states: (a) Affirmative defense.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 17(a) — 1 case
United States v. John David Bartlett (1988)
“) 2057 (currently codified at 18 U.S.C. § 17 (a)), renders inadmissible all psychiatric testimony not offered in connection with the affirmative defense of insanity.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.