United States v. Alexander
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
471 F.2d 923 (1972)
- Written by Corey Farris, JD
Facts
Ellsworth Kramer and four other Marine lieutenants (lieutenants) entered a local hamburger shop. Gordon Alexander and Benjamin Murdock (defendant) were already in the shop. Kramer and Alexander engaged in a staring match that escalated into Kramer referring to Alexander as a “nigger,” “black bastard,” and “dirty nigger bastard.” Alexander and Murdock both pulled revolvers on the lieutenants. Shots were fired, resulting in the deaths of two of the lieutenants. Murdock was charged with second-degree murder and assault. Murdock’s trial was bifurcated. During the insanity portion of his trial, Murdock presented a psychiatrist who testified about Murdock’s social background and detailed Murdock’s psychopathic traits and emotional difficulties that were linked to his feelings of racial oppression. The psychiatrist opined that when Murdock was denigrated with racially charged language, he likely felt an irresistible urge to lash out at those he viewed as his oppressors. The district court instructed the jury on how the evidence could be used to consider whether or not Murdock suffered from a mental disease or defect. Through a special instruction, the district court cautioned the jury to only consider this evidence to determine whether Murdock had a mental condition that would affect the level of his criminal responsibility. Murdock was convicted. Murdock appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McGowan, J.)
Dissent (Bazelon, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.