United States v. Brown
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
635 Fed. Appx. 574 (2015)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
The federal government (plaintiff) prosecuted Korrigan Brown (defendant) on several counts relating to the armed robbery of two stores, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924 and 1951. Neither statute required the government to prove a defendant's sanity as an element of the offense. Brown admitted the robberies but pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. Two mental health experts testified that Brown suffered from bipolar disorder, also known as manic-depressive illness. The judge denied Brown's request for a jury instruction that a conviction required proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was not insane when he robbed the stores. Instead, the judge instructed the jury on the insanity defense provided by 18 U.S.C. § 17, as amended by the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 (IDRA). The judge told the jurors that § 17 required Brown to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, the high probability that at the time of the charged offense, a severe mental disease or defect prevented him from appreciating the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his act. The jury found Brown guilty on all counts. On appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Brown argued that § 17(b) deprived him of due process by relieving the government's obligation to prove every element of the charged offenses.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 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.
