Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Durham v. United States, 214 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1954), [1] is a criminal case articulating what became known as the Durham rule for juries to find a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity: "an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect."
Durham v. United States, 401 U.S. 481 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the death of a defendant pending a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court on direct review of the criminal conviction will cause the Court to vacate the conviction.
A Durham rule, product test, or product defect rule is a rule in a criminal case by which a jury may determine a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity because a criminal act was the product of a mental disease. Examples in which such rules were articulated in common law include State v. Pike (1870) and Durham v. United States (1954).
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
At the Washington Post that same year, Radley Balko explained the larger issue around Nifong and the Durham District Attorney: "After Nifong was removed from office, Tracey Cline, his top aide ...
The strict M'Naghten standard for the insanity defense was widely used until the 1950s and the case of Durham v. United States case. [ 56 ] In the Durham case, the court ruled that a defendant is entitled to acquittal if the crime was the product of their mental illness (i.e., crime would not have been committed but for the disease).
Search. Search. Appearance. Donate ... Download as PDF; Printable version ... Durham v. United States can refer to: Durham v. United States (1971) Durham v. United ...
The court in Durham v. United States used it as the basis for what came to be known as the Durham rule. [10] 1880 – America's National Association of the Deaf was established. [11] 1881 – Portland, Oregon enacted an ugly law. [12] 1881 – A Chicago ordinance of 1881 read as follows: