| United States v. Brawner | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit |
| Full case name | United States v. Archie W. Brawner |
| Argued | April 12, 1972 |
| Decided | June 23, 1972 |
| Citation(s) | 471 F.2d 969; 153 U.S. App. D.C. 1 |
| Case history | |
| Subsequent history | Rehearing denied, August 21, 1972. |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | David L. Bazelon, James Skelly Wright, Carl E. McGowan, Edward Allen Tamm, Harold Leventhal, Spottswood William Robinson III, George MacKinnon, Roger Robb, Malcolm Richard Wilkey (en banc) |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Leventhal, joined by Wright, McGowan, Tamm, Robinson, MacKinnon, Robb, Wilkey |
| Concur/dissent | Bazelon |
United States v. Brawner, 471 F.2d 969 (D.C. Cir. 1972),[1] is decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in which the Court held that a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.
The case overturned the Durham rule for determining whether a defendant was not guilty by reason of insanity. The Court ruled that the primary reason they were departing from the old test of insanity is that it put substantial dominance on the testimony of experts. The Court exhaustively examined the justification for the defense of insanity and the need to guide the jury with a specific framework for the insanity defense. The American Law Institute provided a better framework in the majority's opinion because it took part of the reliance on experts away and focused on the acts and mental state of a defendant at the time he committed the acts constituting the crime.[2][3]: 634 It proposed a rule that was adopted as the American Law Institute Model Penal Code rule (ALI rule).[2]
YouTube Encyclopedic
-
1/1Views:942
-
Tarleton Rocket Team, 2014 CanSat
Transcription
5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Dustin: How can you have more fun than seeing something fly that you spent a year on and you're seeing these rockets fly . You're seeing teams from around the world that are having the same problems you're having. You know, we kind of like to belittle ourselves and think that oh well, you know these guys in Rome, Italy, they're going to be way better than us. Or Manchester, they're coming in, they got to be way better. Turns out Tarleton's got one of the best payloads here I think. I mean, we've got things that look right, then they work right. Dr. Brawner: There's five of these competitions in the world and there is two in the United States and this is known as the Texas Competition. It's run by the Naval Research Lab and NASA. Sixty teams started this nine months ago from 13 countries. So as far away as India, England, Germany, Spain. All the top aeronautical engineering school United States are here. University of Minnesota, University of Michigan. They all drove down and they're all here to compete and see who's best.
References
- ^ United States v. Brawner, 471 F.2d 969 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
- ^ a b Insanity, Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice 735-40 (1983); Abraham Goldstein
- ^ Criminal Law - Cases and Materials, 7th ed. 2012, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business; John Kaplan, Robert Weisberg, Guyora Binder, ISBN 978-1-4548-0698-1, [1]
External links
- Text of United States v. Brawner, 471 F.2d 969 (D.C. Cir. 1972) is available from: CourtListener Justia OpenJurist Google Scholar
 | This article relating to case law in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
This page was last edited on 13 September 2023, at 03:15