Editing Insanity defense (section)

=====''Federal courts''=====
After the [[John Hinckley Jr.|perpetrator]] of [[Reagan assassination attempt|President Reagan's assassination attempt]] was found not guilty by reason of insanity, Congress passed the [[Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984]].  Under this act, the [[legal burden of proof|burden of proof]] was shifted from the prosecution to the defense and the standard of evidence in federal trials was increased from a [[preponderance of the evidence|preponderance of evidence]] to [[clear and convincing evidence]].  The ALI test was discarded in favor of a new test that more closely resembled M'Naghten's. Under this new test only perpetrators suffering from severe mental illnesses at the time of the crime could successfully employ the insanity defense. The defendant's ability to control himself or herself was no longer a consideration.

The Act also curbed the scope of expert psychiatric testimony and adopted stricter procedures regarding the hospitalization and release of those found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Those acquitted of a federal offense by reason of insanity have not been able to challenge their psychiatric confinement through a [[writ of habeas corpus]] or other remedies. In ''[[Archuleta v. Hedrick]]'', 365 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. 2004), the [[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit]] the court ruled persons found not guilty by reason of insanity and later want to challenge their confinement may not attack their initial successful insanity defense:
{{Blockquote|The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment: "Having thus elected to make himself a member of that 'exceptional class' of persons who seek verdicts of not guilty by reason of insanity...he cannot now be heard to complain of the statutory consequences of his election." The court held that no direct attack upon the final judgment of acquittal by reason of insanity was possible. It also held that the collateral attack that he was not informed that a possible alternative to his commitment was to ask for a new trial was not a meaningful alternative.<ref>{{cite journal
 |url         = http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/33/1/126?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&minscore=5000&resourcetype=HWCIT
 |author      = Nwokike, Jerome
 |title       = Federal Insanity Acquittees - Person Found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity May Not Attack His Successful Insanity Defense in Habeas Petition
 |journal     = Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
 |access-date  = 2007-10-11
 |volume      = 33
 |issue       = 1
 |page        = 126
 |year        = 2005
 |url-status     = live
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20071229225408/http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/33/1/126?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&minscore=5000&resourcetype=HWCIT
 |archive-date = 2007-12-29
}}
</ref> }}