Opinion ID: 566299
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Imposition of the Insanity Defense in This Circuit

Text: 10 In Whalem v. United States, 346 F.2d 812, the leading case in the field, this court explained the rationale for requiring the district court to raise the issue of insanity on its own motion: 11 [I]f a man is insane in the eyes of the law, he is blameless in the eyes of society and is not subject to punishment in the criminal courts.... 12 [T]he trial judge must uphold this structural foundation by refusing to allow the conviction of an obviously mentally irresponsible defendant, and when there is sufficient question as to a defendant's mental responsibility at the time of the crime, that issue must become part of the case. 13 346 F.2d at 818. 14 The court continued, [I]n the pursuit of justice, a trial judge must have the discretion to impose an unwanted defense on a defendant and the consequent additional burden of proof on the Government prosecutor. Id. at 819. The district court might abuse that discretion by failing to impose the defense where a combination of factors ... require[s] the trial judge to inject the insanity issue. Id. 15 Early cases applying Whalem emphasized the discretionary nature of the court's decision whether to impose the insanity defense. Cross v. United States, 354 F.2d 512, 513 (D.C.Cir.1965) (district court has discretionary power to act as it sees fit); Trest v. United States, 350 F.2d 794 (D.C.Cir.1965) (affirming decision not to impose defense despite uncontested psychiatric report stating that defendant's crimes were product of mental disorder). Although in the 25 years since Whalem we have never reversed a district court's exercise of that discretion, see Wright II, 627 F.2d at 1307 (the most recent case on this issue), we did once warn that [a] defendant who has a substantial insanity defense may decide to waive that defense ... [, but if] the trial court failed to raise the defense sua sponte, then the defendant has a ground for appellate reversal on the basis of Whalem. United States v. Wright, 511 F.2d 1311, 1314 (D.C.Cir.1975) (Wright I ). 16 In Robertson I, the court laid down specific procedures to be followed by the district court when a defendant declines to raise the insanity defense although there is sufficient question of mental responsibility to go to the jury. 507 F.2d at 1161. We required the district court to insure[ ] that he hear evidence supporting as well as opposing the imposition of an insanity defense, id. at 1158, and suggested that the appointment and participation of amicus counsel may well be the only way to elicit such evidence. Id. at 1158 n. 45. Although the district court is of course not bound to adopt in whole or in part the views of any expert, the trial judge was directed to conduct on the record a thorough exploration of the [differing views of the experts] and in addition set forth in reasonable detail the reasons for his own ultimate determination. Id. at 1161.