Comer Blocker v. United States

In my view we should reverse on the grounds urged by appellant’s very able brief with respect to the mechanical and restrictive aspects of the “disease-defect-product” 1 test for determining criminal responsibility. This would require that we modify the standard of criminal responsibility adopted by us in 1954 2 from the New Hampshire rule of 1869.3

Since its adoption in 1954, the “disease-product” test has been both acclaimed4 and criticized; it has been called “vague,” “confusing,” “ambiguous,” “misleading,” and it has been condemned as taking the fact determination away from jurors and…