





Insanity
Intoxication
Ignorance
Age
Entrapment
Justification





Defendant’s state of mind negates his/her criminal
responsibility.
“Not guilty by reason of insanity.”
State of mind at the time of the crime.
Psychiatric testimony.
Types (pg. 142 in book)





The M’Naghten Rule
Irresistible Impulse
The Durham Rule
The Insanity Defense Reform Act
The Substantial Capacity Test



John Hinckley, Jr.
In 1981, Hinckley developed an obsession with
the movie Taxi Driver, in which Jodie Foster
stars as a child prostitute and Robert Deniro
plays Travis Bickle, who plots to assassinate the
presidential candidate in the film. As he grew
more desperate in his attempts, he even
considered taking his own life in front of her to
gain her attention. Eventually he decided to
attempt an assassination on President Ronald
Reagan. As the president left the Hilton Hotel,
he shot six times at Reagan, wounding a few
other people in the process. One of the bullets
ricocheted and hit the president on the chest.
Hinckley’s defense team pled for insanity
defense and succeeded, he was acquitted of all
of his 13 charges of assault, murder and weapon
counts. Due to the high profile of the case, the
public perceived the insanity defense as a
loophole in the legal system which allowed a
clearly guilty criminal to dodge incarceration.
Charles Manson




Voluntary intoxication is not a defense.
Involuntary intoxication (duress or mistake) is
a defense.
Judgment may be decreased in some cases of
the intoxication defense.
REAL LIFE EXAMPLE:


Katie Flynn/Brand New
REAL LIFE EXAMPLE:


“Zombie” attack in Florida this past year.
Thoughts?


A child is not criminally responsible for actions
committed at an age that precludes full
realization of the gravity of the situation.
Under age 7:


Age 7-14:


Not held criminally responsible
May be held responsible.
Age 14-17 or 18:

Can be held responsible…depends on jurisdiction.


A judge has ruled that a Pennsylvania boy, who was only 11 years old when he was
accused of shooting his father's pregnant girlfriend in the back of the head with a
shotgun, will be tried as an adult. Jordan Brown faces first-degree murder charges for
both Kenzie Marie Houk and her unborn child. Brown, 12, could face life in prison if
convicted in adult court. "This offense was an execution-style killing of a defenseless
pregnant young mother. A more horrific crime is difficult to imagine," Lawrence County
Judge Dominick Motto said. Brown is accused of taking his youth-model 20-gauge
shotgun into Houk's bedroom on Feb. 20, 2009 and shooting her in the back of the head
while she was laying on the bed. She was 8-1/2 months pregnant at the time.
Prosecutors said he was jealous of his father's new girlfriend and her unborn son. The
judge heard evidence and testimony from both the prosecution and the defense before
refusing to move the case to juvenile court. Under Pennsylvania law, defense attorneys
have to convince the judge that Brown would be more amenable to rehabilitation in the
juvenile system.
Evidence the judge considered from the prosecution included:






Brown wrapped his shotgun in a blanket so that Houk's 7-year-old daughter would not see it as
he walked to Houk's bedroom.
He took the spent shells with him and threw them away on the way to school.
Tests showed the shells were fired from his shotgun.
He continues to deny to even his own doctors that he shot Houk.
Judge Motto said he relied on prosecution psychiatrist, Dr. John O'Brien's assessment in making
his ruling. O'Brien found that Brown was trying to minimize his wrongdoing and shift blame.
http://crime.about.com/b/2010/03/31/12-year-old-to-be-tried-as-an-adult.htm
LEGAL


Can set traps based on
information gathered
from informers,
undercover agents, and
codefendants.
Can use ordinary
opportunities without
excessive inducement.
ILLEGAL



Idea of crime came from
Government or Police.
Persuasion
Not willing to commit
crime.











Attorneys for the NATO 3 accused of creating Molotov cocktails and planning attacks across Chicago say it was the
undercover police officers who brought the firebombs to their apartment, and the charges against them are the result of
"entrapment to the highest degree."
"It is sensationalism by the police and the state to discredit the protesters that have come here to nonviolently protest,"
said defense attorney Michael Deutsch. He went on to say there were two police informants who infiltrated the group
and "we believe they’re the ones who provoked this and they’re the ones who had the illegal activity and the illegal
materials." Watch Deutsch's comments in the videos below.
The undercover officers, known to the defendants as "Mo" and "Gloves," say they were with the defendants when they
made the explosives and discussed the attacks. They say the men bought fuel, poured it into beer bottles and cut up
bandanas for fuses.
The NATO 3 are Brian Church, 20, of Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.; Jared Chase, 24, of Keene, NH; and Brent Vincent Betterly, 24,
of Oakland Park, Fla., and they have been charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism, material support for terrorism
and possession of explosives. They could be sentenced to as many as 85 years in prison. Court documents show the
arrests were the result of a weeks-long police investigation, authorities said, hinting that they had audio recordings of the
defendants making threats.
The defendants were among those arrested Wednesday in a raid of a Bridgeport apartment by police that defense
attorneys say was illegal. They were also in a car that was stopped by Chicago police last week. Video of that incident
alleges police tried to intimidate and harass the men. The Sun-Times reports law enforcement officials asked a judge for
the "no-knock" warrant because they were preparing to move the explosives to another location and feared they'd lose
track. Authorities maintain the raid was just an effort to stop an "imminent threat."
"When someone was in the position (of having) Molotov cocktails — that's pretty imminent," said Police Superintendant
Garry McCarthy. "It was not a completed investigation."
Authorities say the group had planned to first attack police stations and squad cars to divert attention while they
attacked Obama’s national campaign headquarters in the Prudential Building, Emanuel’s home in Ravenswood and
financial buildings. See our previous story for more details and to read the criminal complaint.
Policing experts say the undercover police tactics are similar to those used to arrest eight people before the Republican
National Convention in 2008 in St. Paul, Minn., to arrest the man accused of planting a bomb at Wrigley Field, and to
arrest the five men accused with plotting to blow up a bridge outside of Cleveland last month. Also, a policing expert
told the AP that using terrorism charges for Molotov cocktails "kind of stretches the bounds to define that as terrorism."
In a piece titled "Whose Firebombs?" Newstips writes:
Chicago police have a long history of infiltrating peaceful protest groups and fomenting violence - it’s one reason the Red
Squad was banned by a federal court order (later lifted at the request of Mayor Daley) - and infiltration of protest groups
seems to be standard operating procedure for “national security events.” And nationally since 9/11, an embarrassing
proportion of “anti-terrorism” cases have involved plots proposed, planned, and enabled by police agents.
http://chicagoist.com/2012/05/21/terror_suspects_claim_entrapment_by.php


Defendant acknowledges committal of crime.
5 types:

Consent:
 Lack of consent
 Rape or Larceny

Self-Defense:
 “battered wife syndrome”
 Immediate danger

Stand Your Ground:
 “castle exception”
 Florida

Duress:
 Forced to commit a crime to avoid harm or death of himself or others.

Necessity:
 Act out of necessity according to own judgment
 “lesser of two evils”



Consent: Jack Kevorkian, found guilty of
murder although given “consent” to assist
suicides.
Stand Your Ground, Self-defense, or murder:
Trayvon Martin
Duress: Patty Hearst, 1974
Com. Vs. Thompson (Ignorance of the
Law)
Durham vs. U.S. (Durham Rule)
Downing vs. Com (Involuntary
Intoxication)
State vs. Rudy B. (Age)
McCoy vs. Com. (Entrapment)
Hughes vs. Com. (Justification: SelfDefense)