35 years ago, in June of 1982, a Washington, D.C. jury declared that John Hinckley Jr. was not guilty of wounding President Ronald Reagan and three other people, because he was legally insane. During his two-month trial, government attorneys spent about a half-million dollars, a staggering sum at the time, attempting to convince jurors that Mr. Hinckley was legally sane on March 30, 1981, the day of the shooting. But the jury concluded that the prosecutor did not prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore Mr. Hinckley was sent to a Washington mental hospital.
He stayed in St. Elizabeth’s Mental Hospital until 2016, when a judge allowed him to live with his mother in suburban Williamsburg.
Preparing the Jury for an Insanity Defense
At the time, the Hinckley verdict sparked outrage among many, and although these emotions are not as raw today, they still exist, and an Illinois defense attorney must contend with them.
One objection is that defendants “fake” insanity to avoid prison or capital punishment. Today, most people believe that mental illness is as real as a broken bone, but this old prejudice remains. Skeptical jurors can be excluded from the trial on the basis that they cannot follow the law, viz, they want the defendant to prove he or she is insane, as opposed to the state’s attorney to prove that he or she is not insane. There is a significant difference.
Mr. Hinckley’s doctors were rather cryptic about his illness, but that may have been because in 1982, they did not fully understand it themselves. Moreover, Mr. Hinckley attempted suicide in 1983, well after the trial was over, so he may have suffered from a mental disease or defect, as outlined below.
Another common objection, and one that was voiced loudly in 1982, was that commitment to a mental hospital is tantamount to going “scot free.” Once the jury understands that long-term confinement in a mental hospital is very much like long-term confinement in prison, this objection usually goes away.
Legal Issues
Long before the trial begins, an attorney must be fairly certain that the insanity defense applies. This concept has a specific meaning. As codified in 720 ILCS 5, people are legally insane if they:
- Cannot Understand the Criminality of their Conduct: This rule is a slight variance from the common law M’Naghten test that is still used in many jurisdictions. Under M’Naghten, the defendant must be unable to differentiate between right and wrong.
- Suffer from a Mental Disease or Defect: Brain immaturity, intoxication, drug impairment, and other such factors cannot make a person legally insane.
In many cases, the first prong of this defense is present but not the second prong. In cases like these, defendants are incompetent to stand trial because they cannot understand the nature of the proceedings against them. Typically, the judge orders a brief continuance, and once the defendant is back on his or her medicine, trial resumes.
Count on Experienced Attorneys
In the right circumstances and with the right lawyer, insanity is an effective defense. For a confidential consultation with an experienced criminal law attorney in Schaumburg, contact Glasgow & Olsson.
(image courtesy of Ashton Bingham)