18 U.S.C. § 4242
Determination of the existence of insanity at the time of the offense
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 877 (May 13, 1930, ch. 254, § 7, 46 Stat. 272).
Minor change was made in phraseology.
1984—Pub. L. 98–473 amended section generally, substituting “Determination of the existence of insanity at the time of the offense” for “Retransfer upon recovery” in section catchline, and substituting provisions relating to motion for pretrial psychiatric or psychological examination, and special verdict, for provisions relating to retransfer to a penal or correctional institution upon recovery of an inmate of the United States hospital for defective delinquents.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 97
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1961–2025 · leading case: United States v. David Earl Wattleton, 296 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2002).
United States v. David Earl Wattleton, 296 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2002). “As a result, the government filed a motion informing the court that if the defendant was found competent to stand trial, the government would move for a “not guilty only by reason of insanity verdict, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4242 (b).” On June 5, 2000, the district court held a…”
United States v. Margaret Knape Davis, 93 F.3d 1286 (6th Cir. 1996). “2(c) or under 18 U.S.C. § 4242 , because those provisions only authorize psychiatric examination concerning the defendant’s sanity, which is not at issue here.”
United States v. Stephen Graham-Wright, 715 F.3d 598 (6th Cir. 2013). “In his memorandum on the defense-only evaluation, Graham-Wright clarified that the “‘sanity’ evaluation might be more properly referenced under 18 U.S.C. § 4242 ,” even though Graham-Wright had “not provided notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.”
United States v. Bridget M. Denny-Shaffer, 2 F.3d 999 (10th Cir. 1993). “2(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 4242 to determine her sanity at the time of the kidnapping.”
Shannon v. United States, 512 U.S. 573 (1994). “" 18 U. S. C. § 4242 (b). The text of the Act gives no indication that jurors are to be instructed regarding the consequences of an NGI verdict.”
United States v. Anthony Stewart, 452 F.3d 266 (3rd Cir. 2006). “On July 29, 2002, the Court ordered a psychiatric examination to determine whether Stewart suffered from mental illness at the time of the April 1999 offense pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4242 . 3 Dr. Pate-naude and Dr.”
United States v. Edelin, 134 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C. 2001). “2(c), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4242 , are used in cases where federal defendants claim insanity.”
United States v. Jonathan Read, 918 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 2019). “In response, the government requested an examination of Read pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4242 (a). The court granted the government’s motion.”
United States v. Gary Curbow, 16 F.4th 92 (4th Cir. 2021). “2 The warden stated that his staff would “attempt 1 The Mississippi court concomitantly ordered an evaluation of Curbow’s mental state at the time of the charged offense, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4242 . That statute provides that where a criminal defendant files a notice that he…”
United States v. Battle, 235 F. Supp. 2d 1301 (N.D. Ga. 2001). “See 18 U.S.C. § 4242 . Rule 11(a), Fed.R.Crim.”
United States v. Stephen L. Shlater, 85 F.3d 1251 (7th Cir. 1996). “The government filed a motion for a pretrial psychiatric examination pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4242 , which was granted by the district court.”
In Re John David Newchurch, 807 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1986). “The Rule provides that “[i]n an appropriate case the court may, on motion of the attorney for the government, order the defendant to submit to an examination pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4242 .” 12 Under prior law, a defendant was required to notify the court if he intended to rely…”
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.