## Facts

- Thomas H. Washington, Jr. was prosecuted in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for rape and related offenses, including robbery and assault with a deadly weapon.
- Washington’s principal defense at trial was insanity under the D.C. Circuit’s then-controlling Durham rule for criminal responsibility.
- Washington called a psychiatrist who testified that Washington suffered from a mental disease or defect and that the charged conduct was the product of that condition.
- The government relied on the total trial record—both the circumstances of the offenses and the jury’s authority to evaluate and accept or reject opinion testimony—to argue that criminal responsibility remained a jury question.
- The jury rejected the insanity defense and returned guilty verdicts.
- Washington moved for a judgment of acquittal by reason of insanity, arguing the evidence of non-responsibility was so one-sided that the court should not submit the issue to the jury; the trial court denied that request.
- Washington appealed, challenging the denial of a directed acquittal by reason of insanity.

## Issues

1. Under the Durham “product” test, when must a trial court remove the question of criminal responsibility from the jury and enter a judgment of acquittal by reason of insanity?
2. Was Washington’s evidence of insanity so conclusive that no reasonable jury could find him criminally responsible?

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The court held that the trial judge properly refused to enter a judgment of acquittal by reason of insanity.
- The court reasoned that criminal responsibility under Durham ordinarily presents a question for the jury, which must weigh psychiatric testimony along with the other evidence in the case.
- The court concluded that Washington’s record did not require an insanity acquittal as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Under Durham v. United States, a defendant is not criminally responsible if the unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or defect.
- Durham was designed to allow the factfinder to hear a wide range of medical and scientific evidence, not to turn the responsibility determination into a question decided only by experts or judges.
- The jury’s function in insanity cases includes assessing credibility, resolving conflicts in the evidence, and deciding what weight to give psychiatric opinions in light of all the surrounding facts.
- A directed acquittal by reason of insanity is appropriate only in the unusual case where, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, no reasonable jury could find criminal responsibility.

## Conclusion

Washington v. United States reaffirmed that, even under Durham’s product test, insanity generally remains a jury issue because responsibility depends on the jury’s evaluation of expert testimony together with the full factual record; because the evidence in Washington’s case did not compel a finding of non-responsibility as a matter of law, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the trial court’s refusal to direct an acquittal by reason of insanity.


Washington v. United States, 390 F.2d 444 (1967)