## Facts

- Dwayne Freeman robbed a bank using a mask, handgun, and satchel, and threatened employees with retaliation if they contacted police.
- When police spotted him after the robbery, Freeman fled and changed clothes to avoid detection.
- Freeman had previously volunteered to raise money for a charity and claimed he robbed the bank to benefit that effort.
- A prison psychiatrist opined that Freeman suffered from severe mental illness.
- Freeman pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity; the jury rejected the defense and convicted him of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b), (d).

## Issues

1. Whether the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 is constitutional in (a) requiring defendants to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence and (b) limiting insanity to inability to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of the act.
2. Whether Freeman proved insanity as a matter of law under the clear-and-convincing standard, such that the jury’s sanity finding could not stand.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the Insanity Defense Reform Act’s clear-and-convincing burden on defendants is constitutional.
- The court held Congress may constitutionally narrow the federal insanity defense to cognitive incapacity (inability to appreciate nature and quality or wrongfulness) and exclude a volitional incapacity standard.
- The court held Freeman did not establish insanity as a matter of law; the jury’s finding that he was sane was supported by evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Congress may assign to criminal defendants the burden to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence without violating due process.
- Congress may define federal insanity to require cognitive incapacity—an inability to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of the act—without violating due process or the Eighth Amendment.
- Appellate courts generally defer to the jury’s sanity determination where the record contains evidence permitting a rational finding that the defendant failed to carry the clear-and-convincing burden.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the Insanity Defense Reform Act’s narrowed insanity definition and burden-shifting framework, and it affirmed Freeman’s bank robbery conviction because evidence of planning and evasion allowed the jury to find he appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct and had not proved insanity by clear and convincing evidence.


United States v. Freeman, 804 F.2d 1574 (11th Cir. 1986)