Why People Dislike the Insanity Defense

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on the insanity defense, considering when and why juries (and others) might perceive a criminal defendant to be not guilty by reason of insanity. Colb proposes that if a criminal defendant’s mental illness looks like an outside force that made him behave in an out-of-character fashion, then the jury is more likely to find him not guilty by reason of insanity.

Read More

United States v. Bradshaw

Docket: 18-3728

Opinion Date: April 7, 2020

Judge: Grasz

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. The court held that the district court did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice by denying the motion to continue the trial and to substitute counsel. In this case, there was no evidence of a sudden exigency or unforeseen circumstances which would weigh in favor of continuing the trial. Furthermore, the last-minute nature of defendant's motion, without some compelling justification, undermines the district court's interest in the orderly administration of justice. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions.

Jimenez Galloso v. Barr

Docket: 18-2812

Opinion Date: April 7, 2020

Judge: Jane Louise Kelly

Areas of Law: Immigration Law

The Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The court held that petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution under the unable-and-unwilling standard. In this case, based on the country reports and her own testimony that she did not and would not contact the Mexican police, the court held that petitioner failed to show that the Mexican government is unable or unwilling to protect her. Furthermore, even assuming petitioner's asylum application was timely, the court found no basis for granting her petition for review as she did not show a well-founded fear of future persecution. Finally, even assuming "Mexican females" is a cognizable social group and that petitioner is a member of both the "Mexican females" and "unable to leave" groups, the court found that she failed to meet her burden of proving future persecution and is thus not entitled to relief.