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).
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 ...
Case name Citation Date decided In re Isserman: 348 U.S. 1: 1954: Chandler v. Fretag: 348 U.S. 3: 1954: Offutt v. United States: 348 U.S. 11: 1954: McAllister v.
The two most consequential cases she participated in were Durham v. United States (1954) and Jenkins v. United States (1962). [7] Monte Durham was a client of Ives and she testified in his trial, [2] the result of which gave name to the Durham Rule, which found that a defendant could be found not guilty due to "mental disease or defect."
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.
United States (1966), the first Supreme Court case that evaluated a juvenile court procedure, Fortas suggested that the existing system might be "the worst of both worlds." [ 3 ] At that time, the state was held to have a paternal interest in the child rather than a prosecutorial one, a concept that dispensed with the obligation to provide a ...