## Facts

- Charles Freeman was prosecuted in the Southern District of New York for two narcotics sales under 21 U.S.C. §§ 173, 174 and received concurrent five-year sentences after a bench trial.
- Freeman asserted an insanity defense based on a history of chronic drug and alcohol abuse and alleged mental disturbances, including episodes described as toxic psychosis, delusions, hallucinations, convulsions, amnesia, and head trauma.
- The alleged narcotics transactions occurred in 1963 and involved sales to undercover agents.
- Psychiatric evidence largely agreed Freeman understood he was selling narcotics; the dispute centered on whether mental disease or defect substantially impaired his ability to appreciate wrongfulness and/or control his conduct.
- The district court applied the M’Naghten insanity rule and rejected the defense, reasoning that Freeman’s awareness of the nature of his acts and their illegality foreclosed relief under that test.

## Issues

1. Whether the M’Naghten rule should remain the controlling federal standard for insanity in the Second Circuit.
2. What insanity standard should govern the relationship between mental disease or defect and criminal responsibility, including cognitive and volitional impairment.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The court abandoned M’Naghten as the governing test in the circuit.
- The court adopted a modified ALI Model Penal Code standard: a defendant is not responsible if, due to mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the law.
- Because the trial court applied M’Naghten, the factfinder had not evaluated the psychiatric evidence under the broader ALI standard, requiring retrial.
- The court expressed no view on whether Freeman would satisfy the new test on retrial.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal responsibility may be negated where mental disease or defect causes a lack of substantial capacity to (a) appreciate wrongfulness or (b) conform conduct to legal requirements.
- “Substantial capacity” permits recognition of serious impairment short of total incapacity, avoiding an all-or-nothing approach.
- Insanity doctrine must account for both cognitive impairment and volitional impairment; awareness of illegality does not alone resolve responsibility.
- Conditions manifested only by repeated criminal or antisocial conduct are excluded from “mental disease or defect,” preventing conversion of bad character into legal insanity.
- The insanity standard is a guide for the factfinder’s moral judgment about responsibility rather than a purely mechanical rule.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit replaced the M’Naghten rule with the ALI Model Penal Code insanity test and ordered a new trial so Freeman’s psychiatric evidence could be assessed under a standard that considers substantial impairments in appreciation of wrongfulness and ability to control conduct.


United States v. Freeman, 357 F.2d 606 (2d Cir. 1966)