Legal Opinion
Shannon v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided June 24, 1994No. 92-8346PublishedCited by 323 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Thomas
In this case, we consider whether a federal district court is required to instruct the jury regarding the consequences to the defendant of a verdict of “not guilty by reason of insanity,” either under the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 or as a matter of general federal practice. We conclude that such an instruction is not required, and therefore affirm.
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). Defendants who mounted a…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Richardson v. MarshSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. MortierSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Rogers v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- County of Washington v. GuntherSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Capital Traction Co. v. HofSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by323 opinions
- Jones v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- United States v. GonzalesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Robert Glen Coe, Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Ricky Bell, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999
- Aaron Lindh v. James P. Murphy, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996
- Aldrich v. BockDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2004
318 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.