United States v. Ewing’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In the context of the insanity defense, courts and scholars have generally proposed three alternative definitions for the term: (1) legal wrongfulness, as in “contrary to law”; (2) moral wrongfulness, as in “contrary to public morality,” determined objectively by reference to society’s condemnation of the act as morally wrong; or (3) moral wrongfulness, as in “contrary to personal morality,” determined subjectively by reference to the defendant’s belief that his action was morally justified (even if he appreciated that it was illegal or contrary to public morality).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Noah Cuebas · 545 F. Supp. 2d 270 - United States v. Polizzi

2. “AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — INSAN ITY The defendant claims to have been insane at the time that the crimes charged in the indictment were allegedly committed. Since the law does not hold a person criminally accountable for his or her conduct while insane, insanity is a defense to the crime charged. The sanity of the defendant at the time of the alleged offenses is, therefore, a question which you must decide. To be found to be insane, the defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that: First: He had a severe mental disease or defect at the time that the acts constituting the crime charged were committed, and Second: As a result of this severe mental disease or defect, he was not able to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his acts. In other words, he was unable to understand what he was doing or to understand what he was doing was wrong. The term “wrongfulness” as used in these instructions means contrary to public morality, as well as contrary to law. However, evidence that the defendant knew his conduct was contrary to law may be considered by you in determin ing whether the defendant appreciated that his conduct was contrary to public morality. The defendant must prove his insanity at the time of the offense by clear and convincing evidence, that is, the defendant must show that it is highly probable that he was insane at that time. In making your decision, you may consider evidence of the mental condition of the defendant before or after the crime c”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 545 F. Supp. 2d 270 - United States v. Polizzi

3. “AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — SE VERE MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT You have heard evidence tending to show that the defendant was insane at the time that the crime was committed. Specifically, I am referring to the testimony of Dr. Eric Goldsmith. The Government has offered evidence in rebuttal tending to show that the defendant was sane. Specifically, I am referring to the testimony of Dr. N.G. Berrill. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was insane at the time of the acts. The acts in this case, is as described by the Government, that the defendant downloaded onto his computer the material described in the indictment. The Government says that the unlawful conduct is the receipt and possession of the downloaded material. The defense on the other hand says that the defendant due to a severe mental disease or defect at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts, that is the downloading of the material. Under the law, a defendant is not guilty if he was insane when the crime was committed. The law defines insanity to mean that a person is not criminally responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of such conduct, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the nature and the quality or wrongfulness of his acts. When I speak about a mental defect, I do not refer to any particular medical term, even t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 545 F. Supp. 2d 270 - United States v. Polizzi