United States v. Mezvinsky
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
206 F. Supp. 2d 661 (2002)
- Written by Joe Cox, JD
Facts
Edward Mezvinsky (defendant) was charged by the federal government (plaintiff) with a multitude of fraud and financial schemes that occurred over a 12-year period. Accordingly, Mezvinsky’s attorney gave notice of Mezvinky’s intention to invoke a mental-health defense. Using insanity as an affirmative defense, pursuant to the Insanity Defense Reform Act, requires the defendant to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the mental disease or defect prevented the defendant from appreciating the nature and wrongful character of the defendant’s acts when the conduct was committed. After the government objected, Mezvinsky advised that he would not assert insanity as an affirmative defense but would use the defense to claim that Mezvinsky lacked the specific intent or mens rea to commit the crimes of which he was accused. Mezvinsky pleaded his mental-health defense based on frontal-lobe organic brain damage, as shown in a positron emission tomography (PET) scan taken on November 9, 2001. Although two different experts discussed the PET scan findings, each expert found that no study existed linking the alleged diminished capacity in parts of Mezvinsky’s brain to any specific disorder, and neither expert could make any scientifically supported inference about the state of Mezvinsky’s brain over the past 12 years.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dalzell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
