Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

People v. Weinstein

591 N.Y.S.2d 715, 156 Misc.2d 34 (1992)

Case BriefQ&ARelatedOptions
From our private database of 22,600+ case briefs...

People v. Weinstein

New York Supreme Court

591 N.Y.S.2d 715, 156 Misc.2d 34 (1992)

Facts

The State of New York (plaintiff) charged Herbert Weinstein (defendant) with murder in the second degree. The state alleged that Weinstein strangled his wife and then threw her body from their window on the twelfth floor to make it look like a suicide. Weinstein filed a notice with the trial court, which asserted the defense that Weinstein lacked criminal responsibility for the murder due to mental disease or defect. The notice included different types of evidence that Weinstein planned to introduce at the trial to establish the defense, including a psychiatrist’s opinion that Weinstein was not criminally responsible for the murder due to mental disease or defect. The psychiatrist’s opinion was based on physical and neuropsychological tests, interviews with Weinstein, and other information. The opinion also was based on scans of Weinstein’s brain using positron emission tomography (PET) and results of skin conductance response (SCR) tests. The scans revealed a cyst in Weinstein’s brain and metabolic imbalances in areas of the brain near the cyst. The SCR results showed damage to the frontal lobes of Weinstein’s brain. The state filed a motion to exclude the evidence relating to the PET scans and the SCR results. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion. The evidence presented at the hearing established that PET scans were generally accepted as a method for measuring glucose metabolism in the brain. SCR results were not generally accepted, but some studies had shown the tests’ success in identifying damage to the frontal lobes.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Carruthers, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 519,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 519,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions and answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 519,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 22,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership