Supreme Court to Decide if Insanity Defense and Unanimous Jury Are Required Nationwide

March 19, 2019by David G. Savage
US Capitol building at night in summer. Washington DC. White house building in the light of lanterns. (Dreamstime/TNS)

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to resolve two long-standing disputes and decide whether the Constitution includes rights to the insanity defense and a unanimous jury verdict of guilt.

Most states permit criminal defendants to plead insanity and escape the full punishment of the law on the grounds that they did not know right from wrong at the time of their crimes.

Kansas, however, says defendants may cite a “mental disease or defect” as a partial defense, but they may be found guilty nonetheless if they intended to commit violent crimes.

All but two states — Louisiana and Oregon — require unanimous jury verdicts in criminal cases.

The justices said Monday that they would hear appeals from convicted murderers in Kansas and Louisiana who contend that those convictions were unconstitutional.

Voting to hear claims from convicted criminals may seem somewhat surprising for a more conservative Supreme Court. But it may be in keeping with another recent ruling that clarified that other constitutional rights should apply to all states.

Last month, the justices resolved a similar dispute by ruling that the Eighth Amendment protects Americans from “excessive fines” imposed by states and local governments, including the seizure of a $42,000 Land Rover for a $300 drug crime. In that case, Timbs v. Indiana, the court — prodded by new Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh — said the time had passed for states to argue that they did not have to abide by all parts of the Bill of Rights.

The Sixth Amendment protects the “right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” For most of American history, that has been understood to require a jury verdict of guilt based on a unanimous vote.

In 1972, the Supreme Court took up the issue in an Oregon case, but issued a splintered 4-1-4 decision. The result was that juries in federal courts must be unanimous to impose guilt, but states like Oregon and Louisiana were free to uphold jury verdicts that were less than unanimous.

In 2016, Evangelisto Ramos was convicted on 10-2 jury verdict of murdering a suspected prostitute in New Orleans. His appeal argued that Louisiana’s rule allowing non-unanimous jury verdicts was adopted in 1898 for racist reasons, and it should be overturned. The state’s attorneys urged the court to deny the appeal and noted that the state’s voters approved requiring unanimous verdicts beginning this year. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court said it would hear Ramos v. Louisiana in the fall to decide whether unanimous jury verdicts will be a constitutional rule nationwide.

The court will also hear an appeal from James Kahler, who shot and killed two of his daughters, his ex-wife and her grandmother, and sought to plead insanity. He claimed that he had sunk into hopeless depression after his marriage collapsed. But a state expert testified that Kahler planned the murders. He was convicted and sentenced to death, despite his insanity plea.

His appeal in Kahler v. Kansas argues that the insanity defense is a fundamental aspect of American justice and cannot be restricted or abolished by the states.

In Kansas, Kahler’s attorney argued, “it is not a defense to criminal liability that mental illness prevented the defendant from knowing his actions were wrong. So long as he knowingly killed a human being — even if he did it because he believed the devil told him to, or because a delusion convinced him that his victim was trying to kill him, or because he lacked the ability to control his actions — he is guilty.”

His attorneys said Alaska, Montana, Idaho and Utah have also limited the use of insanity as a defense to a crime.

In a third criminal case, the justices will decide whether Lee Boyd Malvo will serve life in prison for his role in the 2002 sniper shootings in the Washington, D.C., area. John Allen Muhammad was convicted of the shootings and executed in Virginia. Malvo, who was then 17, was sentenced to life in prison with no chance for parole.

The Supreme Court later put new limits on life prison terms for those who commit murders as a juvenile, and the court in Mathena v. Malvo will decide whether those rulings apply retroactively to those already serving life terms. If Malvo prevails, he will get a new sentencing hearing.


©2019 Los Angeles Times

Visit the Los Angeles Times at

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Supreme Court

Supreme Court May Punt Rather Than Rule on Key Gun-Rights Case Supreme Court
Supreme Court May Punt Rather Than Rule on Key Gun-Rights Case

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices sounded uncertain Monday over whether to rule on a major gun-rights case, since New York City has repealed the disputed law at issue that restricted carrying a licensed weapon outside the city. The gun owners who sued “got everything they... Read More

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Discharged From Hospital, Court Says Supreme Court
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Discharged From Hospital, Court Says

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was discharged from a Baltimore hospital Sunday and is “home and doing well,” the court said in a statement. The 86-year-old was hospitalized Friday night with chills and a fever, and her condition improved Saturday. “With intravenous antibiotics... Read More

Supreme Court Steps Into Google-Oracle Copyright Fight
Supreme Court Steps Into Google-Oracle Copyright Fight
November 18, 2019
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide a long-running copyright dispute between technology giants Oracle and Google. The case stems from Google’s development of its hugely popular Android operating system by using Oracle’s Java programming language. Oracle claims Google owes it roughly $8 billion... Read More

Chief Justice Orders Delay in House Fight for Trump Records
Chief Justice Orders Delay in House Fight for Trump Records
November 18, 2019
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON —  Chief Justice John Roberts on Monday imposed an indefinite delay in the House of Representatives’ demand for President Donald Trump’s financial records. Roberts’ order Monday provides no hint about how the Supreme Court ultimately will resolve the dispute. It was handed down just hours... Read More

Trump Asks Supreme Court to Bar Release of His Tax Returns Law
Trump Asks Supreme Court to Bar Release of His Tax Returns
November 15, 2019
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to bar his accounting firm from turning over eight years of his tax returns to prosecutors in New York. The case has significance far beyond Trump as it could determined the scope of presidential immunity... Read More

Trump Request Denied for Rehearing in House Tax-Records Case In The News
Trump Request Denied for Rehearing in House Tax-Records Case

WASHINGTON — A U.S. appeals court in Washington denied President Donald Trump’s request that it reconsider an earlier three-judge panel ruling refusing to quash a demand by House Democrats for records at Trump’s accountants Mazars USA LLP. Congress issued the subpoena to Mazars in April as... Read More

Straight From The Well
scroll top