Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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).
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."
State v. Pike, 49 N.H. 399 (1870), is a criminal case which articulated a product test for an insanity defense. [1] The court in Durham v. United States used it as the basis for what came to be known as the Durham rule. [1]
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 ...
The test has more lenient guidelines for the insanity defense, but it addressed the issue of convicting mentally ill defendants, which was allowed under the M'Naghten Rule. [12] However, the Durham standard drew much criticism because of its expansive definition of legal insanity. It was abandoned in the 1970s, after the case of United States v.
The trial of a Russian national accused of lying to federal investigators about information he contributed to the so-called Steele dossier is set to begin this week, marking a major test for the ...
For head coach Richard Bailey and the Fighting Scots, they'll be challenged with hosting a loaded Southern Durham Spartans team in their 2023 season opener Friday. But, to Bailey, Southern Durham ...
United States v. Brawner, 471 F.2d 969 (D.C. Cir. 1972), [1] is decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in which the Court held that a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or conform his ...