Misplaced Pages

#525474

74-458: Latson is a surname. Notable people with the surname include: Reginald Latson , also known as Neli Latson, autistic American man who was arrested in 2010 and later pardoned T. L. Latson (born 1970s), American basketball player Ta'Niya Latson (born c. 2004), American basketball player W. R. C. Latson (1866–1911), American physician [REDACTED] Surname list This page lists people with

148-463: A Guilty but Mentally Ill ( GBMI ) or a Guilty but Insane verdict. The GBMI verdict is available as an alternative to, rather than in lieu of, a "not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict. Michigan (1975) was the first state to create a GBMI verdict, after two prisoners released after being found NGRI committed violent crimes within a year of release, one raping two women and the other killing his wife. The notion of temporary insanity argues that

222-481: A delusional Dorothy Talbye was hanged in 1638 for murdering her daughter, as at the time Massachusetts 's common law made no distinction between insanity (or mental illness ) and criminal behavior. Edward II , under English common law , declared that a person was insane if their mental capacity was no more than that of a "wild beast" (in the sense of a dumb animal, rather than being frenzied). The first complete transcript of an insanity trial dates to 1724. It

296-591: A mental institution , except in the case of temporary insanity. In England and Wales, under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act of 1991 (amended by the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act, 2004 to remove the option of a guardianship order), the court can mandate a hospital order, a restriction order (where release from hospital requires the permission of the Home Secretary),

370-453: A testator from recognizing the natural objects of their bounty, and from involuntary civil commitment to a mental institution, when anyone is found to be gravely disabled or to be a danger to themself or to others. Legal definitions of insanity or mental disorder are varied, and include the M'Naghten Rule , the Durham rule , the 1953 British Royal Commission on Capital Punishment report ,

444-472: A "mental illness" the defendant was responsible for the acts committed and will be treated in court as a normal defendant. If the person has a mental illness and it is determined that the mental illness interfered with the person's ability to determine right from wrong (and other associated criteria a jurisdiction may have) and if the person is willing to plead guilty or is proven guilty in a court of law, some jurisdictions have an alternative option known as either

518-568: A "supervision and treatment" order, or an absolute discharge. Unlike defendants who are found guilty of a crime, they are not institutionalized for a fixed period, but rather held in the institution until they are determined not to be a threat. Authorities making this decision tend to be cautious, and as a result, defendants can often be institutionalized for longer than they would have been incarcerated in prison. In Australia there are nine law units , each of which may have different rules governing mental impairment defenses. In South Australia ,

592-409: A confused state, intoxicated, or not of sound mind. The term may be applied when a determination of competency needs to be made by a physician for purposes of obtaining informed consent for treatments and, if necessary, assigning a surrogate to make health care decisions. While the proper sphere for this determination is in a court of law, this is practically, and most frequently, made by physicians in

666-477: A defendant was insane during the commission of a crime, but they later regained their sanity after the criminal act was carried out. This legal defense developed in the 19th century and became especially associated with the defense of individuals committing crimes of passion . The defense was first successfully used by U.S. Congressman Daniel Sickles of New York in 1859 after he had killed his wife's lover, Philip Barton Key II . The temporary insanity defense

740-526: A later lawsuit, Latson was tased and then strapped to a restraint chair for nearly nine hours. He was then kept in solitary confinement for longer than a month in a cell that lacked a proper bed and toilet. Then he was transferred to the Marion Treatment Center where he spent several more months in isolation. According to the ACLU of Virginia, Latson had been taken off his psychiatric medication before

814-414: A law enforcement officer, assault and battery of a law enforcement officer, and knowingly disarming a police officer in performance of his official duties. He was sent to jail before trial, although he spent some time at a psychiatric hospital for competency evaluation . The deputy would soon retire due to the ankle injury: he had worked in law enforcement for 33 years. Alexander accepted that he injured

SECTION 10

#1732844501526

888-456: A police officer and obstruction of justice. They recommended a prison sentence of ten and a half years. Shortly thereafter, Latson was convicted of breaking and entering with the intent to commit assault for a 2009 incident where Latson went to another student's home and began punching him, adding seven months of prison. Alexander said she would appeal the rulings. Advocacy organizations for autistic and disabled people paid close attention to

962-417: A significant threat to the safety of the public. Presently a Review Board may recommend a judicial stay of proceedings in the event that it finds the accused both "permanently unfit" and non-dangerous. The decision is left to the court having jurisdiction over the accused. An additional requirement for an unfit accused is the holding of a "prima facie case" hearing every two years. The Crown must demonstrate to

1036-476: A suspended sentence of 30 days. Latson had left the house early that morning to go to the public library, where he often went. Finding it closed, he sat on the grass outside to wait for it to open. At 8:37 a.m., the Stafford County Sheriff's Office received a call about a "suspicious male, possibly in possession of a gun" outside the library and launched a search. Later investigation would confirm that

1110-458: A threat. Proceedings before a Review Board are inquisitorial rather than adversarial. Often the Review Board will be active in conducting an inquiry. Where the Review Board is unable to conclude that the accused is a significant threat to the safety of the public, the review board must grant the accused an absolute discharge, an order essentially terminating the jurisdiction of the criminal law over

1184-426: A trial and to conduct a defence. An accused who is found to be unfit to stand trial is subject to the jurisdiction a Review Board. While the considerations are essentially the same, there are a few provisions which apply only to unfit accused. A Review Board must determine whether the accused is fit to stand trial. Regardless of the determination, the Review Board must then determine what conditions should be imposed on

1258-408: Is 5 years). However, these provisions were never proclaimed into force and were subsequently repealed. A Review Board must hold a hearing every 12 months (unless extended to 24 months) until the accused is discharged absolutely. The issue of mental disorder may also come into play before a trial even begins if the accused's mental state prevents the accused from being able to appreciate the nature of

1332-404: Is a full defense while "diminished capacity" is merely a plea to a lesser crime. Depending on jurisdiction, circumstances and crime, intoxication may be a defense, a mitigating factor or an aggravating factor. However, most jurisdictions differentiate between voluntary intoxication and involuntary intoxication . In some cases, intoxication (usually involuntary intoxication) may be covered by

1406-447: Is a legal term meaning "not of sound mind". Non compos mentis derives from the Latin non meaning "not", compos meaning "control" or "command", and mentis ( genitive singular of mens ), meaning "of mind". It is the direct opposite of Compos mentis (of a sound mind). Although typically used in law, this term can also be used metaphorically or figuratively; e.g. when one is in

1480-462: Is an exception to the Woolmington v DPP (1935) 'golden thread', as the party raising the issue of the defence of mental illness bears the burden of proving this defence on the balance of probabilities. Generally, the defence will raise the issue of insanity. However, the prosecution can raise it in exceptional circumstances: R v Ayoub (1984). Australian cases have further qualified and explained

1554-545: Is applicable to more circumstances than the insanity defense. The Homicide Act 1957 is the statutory basis for the defense of diminished responsibility in England and Wales, whereas in Scotland it is a product of case law. The number of findings of diminished responsibility has been matched by a fall in unfitness to plead and insanity findings. A plea of diminished capacity is different from a plea of insanity in that "reason of insanity"

SECTION 20

#1732844501526

1628-402: Is based on evaluations by forensic mental health professionals with the appropriate test according to the jurisdiction. Their testimony guides the jury, but they are not allowed to testify to the accused's criminal responsibility, as this is a matter for the jury to decide. Similarly, mental health practitioners are restrained from making a judgment on the " ultimate issue "—whether the defendant

1702-516: Is established under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code and is composed of at least three members, a person who is a judge or eligible to be a judge, a psychiatrist and another expert in a relevant field, such as social work, criminology or psychology. Parties at a Review Board hearing are usually the accused, the Crown and the hospital responsible for the supervision or assessment of the accused. A Review Board

1776-473: Is insane. Some jurisdictions require the evaluation to address the defendant's ability to control their behavior at the time of the offense (the volitional limb). A defendant claiming the defense is pleading " not guilty by reason of insanity " ( NGRI ) or " guilty but insane or mentally ill " in some jurisdictions which, if successful, may result in the defendant being committed to a psychiatric facility for an indeterminate period. Non compos mentis (Latin)

1850-408: Is likely that the insane, like those under 14, were spared trial by ordeal . When that was replaced by trial by jury, members were expected to find the insane guilty but then to refer the case to the king for a royal pardon . From 1500 onwards, juries could acquit the insane, and detention required a separate civil procedure. The Criminal Lunatics Act 1800 , passed with retrospective effect following

1924-630: Is one basis for being found to be legally insane as a criminal defense . It originated in the M'Naghten Rule , and has been reinterpreted and modernized through more recent cases, such as People v. Serravo . In the United Kingdom, Ireland, and the United States, use of the defense is rare. Mitigating factors , including things not eligible for the insanity defense such as intoxication and partial defenses such as diminished capacity and provocation , are used more frequently. The defense

1998-411: Is relevant only at the time of the actus reus . In Woodbridge v The Queen the court stated that a symptom indicating a disease of the mind must be prone to recur and be the result of an underlying pathological infirmity. A 'defect of reason' is the inability to think rationally and pertains to incapacity to reason, rather than having unsound ideas or difficulty with such a task. Examples of disease of

2072-411: Is responsible for both accused persons found NCR or accused persons found unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder. A Review Board dealing with an NCR offender must consider two questions: whether the accused is a "significant threat to the safety of the public" and, if so, what the "least onerous and least restrictive" restrictions on the liberty of the accused should be in order to mitigate such

2146-491: The ALI rule (American Legal Institute Model Penal Code rule), and other provisions, often relating to a lack of mens rea ("guilty mind"). In the criminal laws of Australia and Canada, statutory legislation enshrines the M'Naghten Rules , with the terms defense of mental disorder , defense of mental illness or not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder employed. Being incapable of distinguishing right from wrong

2220-579: The Central Virginia Training Center had been extended to encompass Virginia's mental health system at large. One finding was that the state needlessly institutionalized the intellectually disabled, and failed to provide adequate community-based treatment. On January 20, 2015, Latson was given a conditional pardon by Governor Terry McAuliffe . This sent him directly to the residential treatment program rather than further jail. The pardon stipulated that Latson remain under supervision, with

2294-589: The Eighth and the Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution do not require states to adopt the insanity defense in criminal cases that are based on the defendant's ability to recognize right from wrong. The defense of insanity takes different guises in different jurisdictions, and there are differences between legal systems with regard to the availability, definition and burden of proof , as well as

Latson - Misplaced Pages Continue

2368-411: The M'Naghten Rules . The NSW Supreme Court has held there are two limbs to the M'Naghten Rules , that the accused did not know what he was doing, or that the accused did not appreciate that what he was doing was morally wrong, in both cases the accused must be operating under a 'defect of reason, from a disease of the mind'. The High Court in R v Porter stated that the condition of the accused's mind

2442-512: The US Supreme Court upheld the common law rule that the insane cannot be executed . It further stated that a person under the death penalty is entitled to a competency evaluation and to an evidentiary hearing in court on the question of their competency to be executed. In Wainwright v. Greenfield (1986), the Court ruled that it was fundamentally unfair for the prosecutor to comment during

2516-640: The Washington Post . The Washington Post and The Virginian-Pilot published supporting editorials. Aside from newspapers, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN), the Arc, and the ACLU of Virginia called for his release. Concurrently with the events described so far, Virginia's mental health system had been the subject of investigation by the federal Department of Justice . A 2008 investigation of

2590-402: The justification of self defense or with the mitigation of imperfect self-defense . The insanity defense is also contrasted with a finding that a defendant cannot stand trial in a criminal case because a mental disease prevents them from effectively assisting counsel, from a civil finding in trusts and estates where a will is nullified because it was made when a mental disorder prevented

2664-410: The mental disorder defense , is an affirmative defense by excuse in a criminal case , arguing that the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to a psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act. This is contrasted with an excuse of provocation , in which the defendant is responsible, but the responsibility is lessened due to a temporary mental state. It is also contrasted with

2738-504: The surname Latson . If an internal link intending to refer to a specific person led you to this page, you may wish to change that link by adding the person's given name (s) to the link. Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Latson&oldid=1147126094 " Category : Surnames Hidden categories: Articles with short description Short description with empty Wikidata description All set index articles Reginald Latson At

2812-456: The Arc argued that being under probation imposed constant anxiety and trauma on Latson. On June 21, 2021, Governor Ralph Northam issued a full pardon for Latson, which removed him from all supervision. His convictions remain on his criminal record. As of 2021 , Latson lived together with Alexander in Florida. Not guilty by reason of insanity The insanity defense , also known as

2886-488: The Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) provides that: 269C—Mental competence A person is mentally incompetent to commit an offence if, at the time of the conduct alleged to give rise to the offence, the person is suffering from a mental impairment and, in consequence of the mental impairment— 269H — Mental unfitness to stand trial A person is mentally unfit to stand trial on a charge of an offence if

2960-489: The accused, considering both the protection of the public and the maintenance of the fitness of the accused (or conditions which would render the accused fit). Previously an absolute discharge was unavailable to an unfit accused. However, in R. v. Demers, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the provision restricting the availability of an absolute discharge to an accused person who is deemed both "permanently unfit" and not

3034-471: The accused. Otherwise, the Review Board must order that the accused be either discharged subject to conditions or detained in a hospital, both subject to conditions. The conditions imposed must be the least onerous and least restrictive necessary to mitigate any danger the accused may pose to others. Since the Review Board is empowered under criminal law powers under s. 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867

Latson - Misplaced Pages Continue

3108-508: The acquittal of James Hadfield , mandated detention at the regent's pleasure (indefinitely) even for those who, although insane at the time of the offence, were now sane. The M'Naghten Rules of 1843 were not a codification or definition of insanity but rather the responses of a panel of judges to hypothetical questions posed by Parliament in the wake of Daniel M'Naghten 's acquittal for the homicide of Edward Drummond, whom he mistook for British Prime Minister Robert Peel . The rules define

3182-454: The clinical setting. In English law, the rule of non compos mentis was most commonly used when the defendant invoked religious or magical explanations for behaviour. The concept of defense by insanity has existed since ancient Greece and Rome . During the Roman and Greek eras, insanity was used as a way to help provide a defense for those with mental disorders. However, in colonial America

3256-427: The condition at the time the crime was committed. In the United States, a trial in which the insanity defense is invoked typically involves the testimony of psychiatrists or psychologists who will, as expert witnesses , present opinions on the defendant's state of mind at the time of the offense. Therefore, a person whose mental disorder is not in dispute is determined to be sane if the court decides that despite

3330-446: The court having jurisdiction over the accused that it still has sufficient evidence to try the accused. If the Crown fails to meet this burden then the accused is discharged and proceedings are terminated. The nature of the hearing is virtually identical to that of a preliminary hearing . In Denmark a psychotic person who commits a criminal defense is declared guilty but is sentenced to mandatory treatment instead of prison. Section 16 of

3404-495: The court proceedings on the petitioner's silence invoked as a result of a Miranda warning . The prosecutor had argued that the respondent's silence after receiving Miranda warnings was evidence of his sanity. In 2006, the US Supreme Court decided Clark v. Arizona , upholding Arizona's restrictions on the insanity defense. Kahler v. Kansas , 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is a case in which the US Supreme Court justices ruled that

3478-416: The decision of a Review Board. In 1992 when the new mental disorder provisions were enacted, Parliament included "capping" provisions which were to be enacted at a later date. These capping provisions limited the jurisdiction of a Review Board over an accused based on the maximum potential sentence had the accused been convicted (e.g. there would be a cap of 5 years if the maximum penalty for the index offence

3552-410: The defendant's Eighth Amendment rights, saying that the jury is to be instructed to consider mitigating factors when answering unrelated questions. This ruling suggests specific explanations to the jury are necessary to weigh mitigating factors. Diminished responsibility or diminished capacity can be employed as a mitigating factor or partial defense to crimes. In the United States, diminished capacity

3626-420: The defense as "at the time of committing the act the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or as not to know that what he was doing was wrong." The key is that the defendant could not appreciate the nature of their actions during the commission of the crime. In Ford v. Wainwright 477 U.S. 399 (1986),

3700-543: The defense. This increased coverage gives the impression that the defense is widely used, but this is not the case. According to an eight-state study, the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of all court cases and, when used, has only a 26% success rate. Of those cases that were successful, 90% of the defendants had been previously diagnosed with mental illness. In the United States, those found to have been not guilty by reason of mental disorder or insanity are generally then required to undergo psychiatric treatment in

3774-556: The deputy used racial slurs and other verbal abuse and attempted to sexually assault him, and that the deputy's ankle injury was caused by the deputy kicking Latson. Latson also said that other deputies and police dogs attacked him during the search. The prosecution said that Latson's injuries were not consistent with his account. The prosecution argued instead that, while Latson did have autism, he also possessed "violent tendencies" and "racial hate and this hate for law enforcement" that were unrelated to his disabilities. The prosecution used

SECTION 50

#1732844501526

3848-586: The deputy, but believed that the deputy had attempted to grab Latson as he walked away and Latson reacted with a fight-or-flight response, which can be extreme in autistic individuals. She later filed a complaint against the sheriff with the United States Department of Justice , stating she was not allowed to see Latson until a few days after he was arrested. Alexander started a web site to raise money for Latson's legal bills and to raise awareness, and stated that he needed treatment, not prison. Latson

3922-497: The incident occurred. He was convicted of the assault and another probation violation, and given a sentence of six months in prison, to be followed by a five-year stay in a residential treatment facility in Florida. One newspaper, the San Francisco Bay View , had already called for Latson's pardon in 2011. With this new trial, the attention intensified. Ruth Marcus wrote about the case regularly in her opinion column at

3996-406: The insanity defense. Several cases have ruled that persons found not guilty by reason of insanity may not withdraw the defense in a habeas petition to pursue an alternative, although there have been exceptions in other rulings. In Colorado v. Connelly , 700 A.2d 694 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997), the petitioner who had originally been found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed for ten years to

4070-466: The jurisdiction of a Psychiatric Security Review Board, filed a pro se writ of habeas corpus and the court vacated his insanity acquittal. He was granted a new trial and found guilty of the original charges, receiving a prison sentence of 40 years. In the landmark case of Frendak v. United States in 1979, the court ruled that the insanity defense cannot be imposed upon an unwilling defendant if an intelligent defendant voluntarily wishes to forgo

4144-536: The lawsuit said prison had caused "serious psychological and physiological harm", leading to difficulty adapting to the world outside prison, and that "he experiences severe anxiety and fear in the presence of authority figures." The suit was dismissed on the grounds of qualified immunity . After an appeal affirmed the lower court's decision, and around the time of the George Floyd protests in 2020, Latson began to receive outside attention once more. An attorney for

4218-455: The mind include Arteriosclerosis (considered so because the hardening of the arteries affects the mind. The defence of mental disorder is codified in section 16 of the Criminal Code which states, in part: To establish a claim of mental disorder the party raising the issue must show on a balance of probabilities first that the person who committed the act was suffering from a "disease of

4292-463: The mind", and second, that at the time of the offence they were either 1) unable to appreciate the "nature and quality" of the act, or 2) did not know it was "wrong". The meaning of the word "wrong" was determined in the Supreme Court case of R. v. Chaulk [1990] 3 S.C.R. which held that "wrong" was NOT restricted to "legally wrong" but to "morally wrong" as well. The current legislative scheme

4366-548: The mind". In New South Wales, the defence has been renamed the 'Defence of Mental Illness' in Part 4 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 . However, definitions of the defence are derived from M'Naghten's case and have not been codified. Whether a particular condition amounts to a disease of the mind is not a medical but a legal question to be decided in accordance with the ordinary rules of interpretation. This defence

4440-407: The notion of "significant threat to the safety of the public" is a "criminal threat". This means that the Review Board must find that the threat posed by the accused is of a criminal nature. While proceedings before a Review Board are less formal than in court, there are many procedural safeguards available to the accused given the potential indefinite nature of Part XX.1. Any party may appeal against

4514-479: The original caller had not seen a gun. The sheriff's deputy serving as a school resource officer at the elementary school across the street noticed Latson, approached him, and asked for identification. According to the deputy's account, Latson attacked the deputy and ran away, leaving him with lacerations and a broken ankle. After a search with police dogs , Latson was found in a nearby wooded area and arrested. Latson initially faced three charges: malicious wounding of

SECTION 60

#1732844501526

4588-407: The outdated term " retarded " while dismissing the insanity defense as a "convenience", and asserted that since the deputy had an adult "mentally retarded" child, the deputy was sensitive to children with disabilities. On March 4, the jury found Latson guilty of two felony charges, assault on a law enforcement officer and wounding in the commission of a felony, and two misdemeanor charges, disarming

4662-508: The person's mental processes are so disordered or impaired that the person is — In Victoria the current defence of mental impairment was introduced in the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 which replaced the common law defence of insanity and indefinite detention at the governor's pleasure with the following: These requirements are almost identical to the M'Naghten Rules, substituting "mental impairment" for "disease of

4736-606: The possibility of being arrested and returned to prison if any violation occurred. Alexander described the supervision as very restrictive, and that Latson could do little without asking permission from his group home and his probation officer. In 2016, attorneys representing Latson filed a federal suit against officials of the Virginia Department of Corrections , stating that he was subjected to cruel and inhuman conditions, including long periods of solitary confinement. Although Latson had been released from prison at this point,

4810-407: The remaining eight years. A condition of the reduced time was that Latson attend residential treatment programs once released, and be subject to intensive probation . Latson's defense had argued for his transfer to a hospital, followed by a residential program, without additional jail time. While some advocates felt that the judge's reduced sentence was encouraging, Alexander still felt the sentence

4884-399: The role of judges, juries and medical experts. In jurisdictions where there are jury trials , it is common for the decision about the sanity of an accused to be determined by the jury. An important distinction to be made is the difference between competency and criminal responsibility. Competency largely deals with the defendant's present condition, while criminal responsibility addresses

4958-403: The sole justification for its jurisdiction is public safety. Therefore, the nature of the inquiry is the danger the accused may pose to public safety rather than whether the accused is "cured". For instance, many "sick" accused persons are discharged absolutely on the basis that they are not a danger to the public while many "sane" accused are detained on the basis that they are dangerous. Moreover,

5032-484: The time of his arrest on May 24, 2010, Latson was 18 years old and lived with his mother Lisa Alexander in Stafford, Virginia . His IQ was 69, one point lower than the threshold of intellectual disability . He had also struggled with depression. He had changed schools multiple times, struggling in both special-needs schools and large public schools. In 2009, he had pled guilty to a charge of misdemeanor assault, and given

5106-505: The trial, including Autism Speaks and the Arc of Northern Virginia . In news reports, several parents of autistic teens stated that their child could have reacted the same way in Latson's place. More than 50 people wrote letters to the judge asking for leniency in sentencing. On May 31, the judge sentenced Latson to two years in prison, including a year of time served waiting for trial, and suspended

5180-492: Was convicted on the two counts as well as a probation violation, and ordered back to prison for a year, where he spent time in solitary confinement. A few months later, Latson was charged with assaulting a corrections officer at the Rappahannock Regional Jail. Latson was on suicide watch , and was being moved between areas of the jail when the assault occurred. The officer was not seriously injured. According to

5254-477: Was created by the Parliament of Canada after the previous scheme was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Swain . The new provisions also replaced the old insanity defense with the current mental disorder defence. Once a person is found not criminally responsible ("NCR"), they will have a hearing by a Review Board within 45 days (90 days if the court extends the delay). A Review Board

5328-435: Was indicted by a grand jury in the summer of 2010. His trial began on March 2, 2011, where he pled of not guilty by reason of insanity . A psychiatrist testified that Latson suffered from several disorders, including Asperger's, intermittent explosive disorder and attention deficit disorder . Latson did not testify, but the defense presented transcripts and video where Latson disputed the deputy's account. Latson stated that

5402-438: Was unjust, and feared that Latson could become suicidal in prison. In August of 2013, Latson was arrested at a group home after he threatened to harm himself and staff called the police. He was accused of assaulting an officer and trying to take his weapon. The officer was not harmed. In December, a grand jury indicted him on these counts. The lawyers made largely the same arguments as the first trial. In March of 2014, Latson

5476-642: Was unsuccessfully pleaded by Charles J. Guiteau who assassinated president James A. Garfield in 1881. The United States Supreme Court (in Penry v. Lynaugh ) and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (in Bigby v. Dretke ) have been clear in their decisions that jury instructions in death penalty cases that do not ask about mitigating factors regarding the defendant's mental health violate

#525474