The Robber's State of Mind

A man was tried for robbing a federally insured bank while using a dangerous weapon. He did not dispute that he committed the robbery; his only defence was insanity. Three experts called by the defence testified that he suffered from mental illness that left him substantially unable to conform his conduct to the law, though they differed on the diagnosis. In rebuttal, one prosecution expert said he had a character disorder but was not mentally ill, another gave an ambiguous answer on whether he could control his conduct, and lay witnesses said he appeared to function normally and was sane at the time. The jury convicted him. On appeal he argued the prosecution had never effectively rebutted his evidence of insanity.