WASHINGTON -- The acquittal of John W. Hinckley Jr. by reason of insanity likely will fuel new debate over abolishing the insanity defense in criminal cases.
Just last year, White House counselor Edwin Meese said the insanity defense should be used as a mitigating factor in sentencing a defendant, but not as a defense.
Hinckley, 27, was acquitted Monday night of charges he attempted to assassinate President Reagan and wounded three others in a barrage of gunfire on March 30, 1981.
The jury in the case deliberated for nearly 25 hours over four days before returning its verdict after an eight-week trial in which defense and government lawyers spent nearly a half million dollars on psychiatric experts.
There are moves in Congress to push through legislation abolishing the insanity defense, or limiting its use, in federal trials.
U.S. District Judge Barrington Parker, in instructing the jury of 11 blacks and one white on the law, said they must acquit Hinckley if they found the government had not proved Hinckley was sane 'beyond a reasonable doubt' when he shot Reagan.
'The law provides that a jury shall bring in a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity if, at the time of the criminal conduct, the defendant, as a result of mental disease or defect, either lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law, or lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct,' Parker said in his jury instructions.
Under the law in the District of Columbia, Hinckley will be committed to St. Elizabeth's Mental Hospital in Washington where he will be entitled to a hearing within 50 days. At that time, his lawyers will have to show he is no longer a danger to himself or society before he can be released.
In his final instructions, the judge stressed that at any hearing on Hinckley's incarceration at a mental hospital, the defense must show 'by a preponderance of the evidence' that Hinckley is no longer mentally ill.
The instructions reflected caution on the part of the judge in light of recent actions by a federal appeals court in Washington casting uncertainties on the constitutionality of the law requiring the defendant to prove himself sane to win release.
In March, a three-judge panel of the appeals court ruled the government must prove a defendant is insane at a hearing before a psychiatric board or he may be released, overturning the 1970 law passed by Congress placing the burden on the defendant.
However, the full 11-member appeals court bench threw out that ruling after the Hinckley trial was under way, and the full will reconsider the issue.
Hinckley's lawyers have indicated in court papers that they may argue he is entitled to release from confinement unless prosecutors can show he is still mentally ill and dangerous.
