Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-899_97be.pdf
Page Number: 35.0

4 

SMITH v. ARIZONA 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

his mind was so much deranged that he was a fit sub-
ject to be sent to an insane asylum; also that at differ-
ent  times  from  that  date  during  the  next  succeeding
five years he manifested such decided symptoms of in-
sanity,  without  stimulation,  that  many  different  per-
sons conversing with him and observing his conduct be-
lieved him to be insane; also that during the month of 
June, 1881, at about the expiration of said term of five 
years, he honestly became dominated by the idea that 
he was inspired of God to remove by death the Presi-
dent of the United States; also that he acted upon what 
he believed to be such inspiration, and what he believed 
to be in accordance with the Divine will, in preparation 
for  and  in  the  accomplishment  of  such  purpose;  also
that he committed the act of shooting the President un-
der what he believed to be a Divine command which he 
was  not  at  liberty  to  disobey,  and  which  belief
amounted to a conviction that controlled his conscience 
and  over-powered  his  will  as  to  that  act,  so  that  he 
could  not  resist  the  mental  pressure  upon  him;  also 
that immediately after the shooting he appeared calm 
and as one relieved by the performance of a great duty; 
also  that  there  was  no  other  adequate  motive  for  the
act than the conviction that he was executing the Di-
vine  will  for  the  good  of  his  country—assuming  all 
these  propositions  to  be  true,  state  whether  in  your 
opinion the prisoner was sane or insane at the time of 
shooting President Garfield?
“A.  Assuming those to be true, I should say the pris-
oner was insane.”  C. Rosenberg, The Trial of the As-
sassin Guiteau 144–145 (1968) (Rosenberg). 

How  likely  is  it  that  a  jury  hearing  a  question  like  that 
would keep in mind that all the facts loaded into the ques-
tion  were  merely  hypothetical  and  not  necessarily  sup-
ported by the evidence in the case?