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."
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).
United States v. Harriss: 347 U.S. 612 (1954) constitutionality of The Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946: Berman v. Parker: 348 U.S. 26 (1954) eminent domain, takings United States v. International Boxing Club of New York: Antitrust: 348 U.S. 236 (1955) boxing not exempt from antitrust regulation Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States ...
1954 – Durham v. United States, 214 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1954), 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, that "an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect". [4]
United States (which adopted a new criminal insanity test) set off a long clash between the two judges, because Burger strongly opposed the new test. [19] Under Bazelon's Durham rule, a defendant would be excused from criminal responsibility if a jury found that the unlawful act was "the product of mental disease or mental defect," rather than ...
Durham v. United States can refer to: Durham v. United States (1971) Durham v. United States (1954) This page was last edited on 7 ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
California, 453 U.S. 420 decision in July 1981, overruled by the United States v. Ross , 456 U.S. 798 decision in June 1982. There have been 16 decisions which have simultaneously overruled more than one earlier decision; of these, three have simultaneously overruled four decisions each: the statutory law regarding habeas corpus decision Hensley v.