United States v. William James Thigpen, United States of America v. Herman Campbell Barnett, Jr.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
BIRCH, Circuit Judge:
These cases require us to consider whether a defendant raising an insanity defense is entitled to an instruction informing the jury of the commitment procedure codified in the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241^47. We hold that a defendant is not entitled to such an instruction unless necessary to cure an erroneous view of the consequences of a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict due to inadmissible evidence or improper argument at the defendant’s trial. We also direct district courts to instruct juries not to consider the consequences of a not…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- United States v. OlanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Rogers v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- James Adams v. Louie L. WainwrightCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983
- Levasseur v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United States v. James E. McCrackenCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Shannon v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- People v. Xue VangCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- United States v. Gary E. ChesneyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1996
- Leslie Miedema v. Maytag CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2006
- United States v. Stephen G. HouseCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2012
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.