Can NGROI defense be argued after a guilty verdict?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP












1















tl;dr: In the U.S., can a "not guilty by reason of insanity" (a.k.a., NGRI or NGROI) defense be offered after a guilty verdict but before sentencing?



In criminal prosecutions in the U.S. it is common and generally considered prudent for a defendant to refuse to expose himself to questioning at trial. This forces the prosecution to use independent evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the elements of the crime charged were satisfied.



A defendant may want to entertain a claim that he was insane at the time a crime was committed, but avoid entering that claim when there is a significant probability that the state will fail to obtain an conviction on the merits of the case against him.



So my question is: If a jury returns a guilty verdict for a crime, can a defendant subsequently (but before sentencing) argue to the court that he was insane? Or does that defense always have to be offered at trial for the crime, before the case is sent to the jury?










share|improve this question






















  • I believe the examination would be performed prior to a trial typically, I haven't ever heard of one after conviction unless it were upon appeal.

    – Ron Beyer
    Feb 10 at 16:43











  • I thought NGROI was an affirmative defense, so the finder of fact would need to make that determination and thus the jury makes that finding and needs to be presented NGROI as an option if the defense is pursuing NGROI.

    – Viktor
    Feb 10 at 19:39
















1















tl;dr: In the U.S., can a "not guilty by reason of insanity" (a.k.a., NGRI or NGROI) defense be offered after a guilty verdict but before sentencing?



In criminal prosecutions in the U.S. it is common and generally considered prudent for a defendant to refuse to expose himself to questioning at trial. This forces the prosecution to use independent evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the elements of the crime charged were satisfied.



A defendant may want to entertain a claim that he was insane at the time a crime was committed, but avoid entering that claim when there is a significant probability that the state will fail to obtain an conviction on the merits of the case against him.



So my question is: If a jury returns a guilty verdict for a crime, can a defendant subsequently (but before sentencing) argue to the court that he was insane? Or does that defense always have to be offered at trial for the crime, before the case is sent to the jury?










share|improve this question






















  • I believe the examination would be performed prior to a trial typically, I haven't ever heard of one after conviction unless it were upon appeal.

    – Ron Beyer
    Feb 10 at 16:43











  • I thought NGROI was an affirmative defense, so the finder of fact would need to make that determination and thus the jury makes that finding and needs to be presented NGROI as an option if the defense is pursuing NGROI.

    – Viktor
    Feb 10 at 19:39














1












1








1








tl;dr: In the U.S., can a "not guilty by reason of insanity" (a.k.a., NGRI or NGROI) defense be offered after a guilty verdict but before sentencing?



In criminal prosecutions in the U.S. it is common and generally considered prudent for a defendant to refuse to expose himself to questioning at trial. This forces the prosecution to use independent evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the elements of the crime charged were satisfied.



A defendant may want to entertain a claim that he was insane at the time a crime was committed, but avoid entering that claim when there is a significant probability that the state will fail to obtain an conviction on the merits of the case against him.



So my question is: If a jury returns a guilty verdict for a crime, can a defendant subsequently (but before sentencing) argue to the court that he was insane? Or does that defense always have to be offered at trial for the crime, before the case is sent to the jury?










share|improve this question














tl;dr: In the U.S., can a "not guilty by reason of insanity" (a.k.a., NGRI or NGROI) defense be offered after a guilty verdict but before sentencing?



In criminal prosecutions in the U.S. it is common and generally considered prudent for a defendant to refuse to expose himself to questioning at trial. This forces the prosecution to use independent evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the elements of the crime charged were satisfied.



A defendant may want to entertain a claim that he was insane at the time a crime was committed, but avoid entering that claim when there is a significant probability that the state will fail to obtain an conviction on the merits of the case against him.



So my question is: If a jury returns a guilty verdict for a crime, can a defendant subsequently (but before sentencing) argue to the court that he was insane? Or does that defense always have to be offered at trial for the crime, before the case is sent to the jury?







united-states criminal-law trial criminal-procedure insanity






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Feb 10 at 16:27









feetwetfeetwet

14.7k94194




14.7k94194












  • I believe the examination would be performed prior to a trial typically, I haven't ever heard of one after conviction unless it were upon appeal.

    – Ron Beyer
    Feb 10 at 16:43











  • I thought NGROI was an affirmative defense, so the finder of fact would need to make that determination and thus the jury makes that finding and needs to be presented NGROI as an option if the defense is pursuing NGROI.

    – Viktor
    Feb 10 at 19:39


















  • I believe the examination would be performed prior to a trial typically, I haven't ever heard of one after conviction unless it were upon appeal.

    – Ron Beyer
    Feb 10 at 16:43











  • I thought NGROI was an affirmative defense, so the finder of fact would need to make that determination and thus the jury makes that finding and needs to be presented NGROI as an option if the defense is pursuing NGROI.

    – Viktor
    Feb 10 at 19:39

















I believe the examination would be performed prior to a trial typically, I haven't ever heard of one after conviction unless it were upon appeal.

– Ron Beyer
Feb 10 at 16:43





I believe the examination would be performed prior to a trial typically, I haven't ever heard of one after conviction unless it were upon appeal.

– Ron Beyer
Feb 10 at 16:43













I thought NGROI was an affirmative defense, so the finder of fact would need to make that determination and thus the jury makes that finding and needs to be presented NGROI as an option if the defense is pursuing NGROI.

– Viktor
Feb 10 at 19:39






I thought NGROI was an affirmative defense, so the finder of fact would need to make that determination and thus the jury makes that finding and needs to be presented NGROI as an option if the defense is pursuing NGROI.

– Viktor
Feb 10 at 19:39











2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















1














I assume that the person alleges insanity at the time of the crime, and not incompetence to stand trial. The best but dim hope would be to introduce evidence as a mitigating factor for sentencing – this would not avoid a conviction, but you might think it could reduce the penalty. Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U.S. 517 says that you cannot (automatically) introduce mitigating evidence after the trial:




the State may limit the innocence-related evidence he can introduce at
that proceeding to the evidence he introduced at his original trial




This case does not say that mitigating evidence can never be introduced at the sentencing phase, it says something complex about Oregon state laws on the matter, 8th and 14th Amendment rights, and 28 USC 1257(a).



Taking examples from Washington, you either plead guilty, not guilty, or not guilty by reason of insanity. The rules also state that




Written notice of an intent to rely on the insanity defense, and/or a
claim of present incompetency to stand trial, must be filed at the
time of arraignment or within 10 days thereafter, or at such later
time as the court may for good cause permit. All procedures
concerning the defense of insanity or the competence of the defendant
to stand trial are governed by RCW 10.77.




RCW 10.77.030 says




(1) Evidence of insanity is not admissible unless the defendant, at
the time of arraignment or within ten days thereafter or at such later
time as the court may for good cause permit, files a written notice of
his or her intent to rely on such a defense.



(2) Insanity is a defense which the defendant must establish by a
preponderance of the evidence.




This precludes making the argument after trial. (2) is a question of fact that has to be made by the jury, meaning that the evidence for and against the claim must have been introduced at trial (and there's no do-over if you don't like the outcome of the first trial).






share|improve this answer






























    1














    No, the defence must be offered at trial



    And, typically, the NGRI plea must be entered when the defendant pleas - courts do not generally allow a change of plea.



    Your proposed strategy doesn’t suffer from the plea. NGRI is an affirmative defence - the state still needs to prove their case, if they don’t the correct verdict is not guilty. The judge will direct a jury to find on that before they consider if the defence has made their insanity defence.






    share|improve this answer






















      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "617"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37084%2fcan-ngroi-defense-be-argued-after-a-guilty-verdict%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      1














      I assume that the person alleges insanity at the time of the crime, and not incompetence to stand trial. The best but dim hope would be to introduce evidence as a mitigating factor for sentencing – this would not avoid a conviction, but you might think it could reduce the penalty. Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U.S. 517 says that you cannot (automatically) introduce mitigating evidence after the trial:




      the State may limit the innocence-related evidence he can introduce at
      that proceeding to the evidence he introduced at his original trial




      This case does not say that mitigating evidence can never be introduced at the sentencing phase, it says something complex about Oregon state laws on the matter, 8th and 14th Amendment rights, and 28 USC 1257(a).



      Taking examples from Washington, you either plead guilty, not guilty, or not guilty by reason of insanity. The rules also state that




      Written notice of an intent to rely on the insanity defense, and/or a
      claim of present incompetency to stand trial, must be filed at the
      time of arraignment or within 10 days thereafter, or at such later
      time as the court may for good cause permit. All procedures
      concerning the defense of insanity or the competence of the defendant
      to stand trial are governed by RCW 10.77.




      RCW 10.77.030 says




      (1) Evidence of insanity is not admissible unless the defendant, at
      the time of arraignment or within ten days thereafter or at such later
      time as the court may for good cause permit, files a written notice of
      his or her intent to rely on such a defense.



      (2) Insanity is a defense which the defendant must establish by a
      preponderance of the evidence.




      This precludes making the argument after trial. (2) is a question of fact that has to be made by the jury, meaning that the evidence for and against the claim must have been introduced at trial (and there's no do-over if you don't like the outcome of the first trial).






      share|improve this answer



























        1














        I assume that the person alleges insanity at the time of the crime, and not incompetence to stand trial. The best but dim hope would be to introduce evidence as a mitigating factor for sentencing – this would not avoid a conviction, but you might think it could reduce the penalty. Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U.S. 517 says that you cannot (automatically) introduce mitigating evidence after the trial:




        the State may limit the innocence-related evidence he can introduce at
        that proceeding to the evidence he introduced at his original trial




        This case does not say that mitigating evidence can never be introduced at the sentencing phase, it says something complex about Oregon state laws on the matter, 8th and 14th Amendment rights, and 28 USC 1257(a).



        Taking examples from Washington, you either plead guilty, not guilty, or not guilty by reason of insanity. The rules also state that




        Written notice of an intent to rely on the insanity defense, and/or a
        claim of present incompetency to stand trial, must be filed at the
        time of arraignment or within 10 days thereafter, or at such later
        time as the court may for good cause permit. All procedures
        concerning the defense of insanity or the competence of the defendant
        to stand trial are governed by RCW 10.77.




        RCW 10.77.030 says




        (1) Evidence of insanity is not admissible unless the defendant, at
        the time of arraignment or within ten days thereafter or at such later
        time as the court may for good cause permit, files a written notice of
        his or her intent to rely on such a defense.



        (2) Insanity is a defense which the defendant must establish by a
        preponderance of the evidence.




        This precludes making the argument after trial. (2) is a question of fact that has to be made by the jury, meaning that the evidence for and against the claim must have been introduced at trial (and there's no do-over if you don't like the outcome of the first trial).






        share|improve this answer

























          1












          1








          1







          I assume that the person alleges insanity at the time of the crime, and not incompetence to stand trial. The best but dim hope would be to introduce evidence as a mitigating factor for sentencing – this would not avoid a conviction, but you might think it could reduce the penalty. Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U.S. 517 says that you cannot (automatically) introduce mitigating evidence after the trial:




          the State may limit the innocence-related evidence he can introduce at
          that proceeding to the evidence he introduced at his original trial




          This case does not say that mitigating evidence can never be introduced at the sentencing phase, it says something complex about Oregon state laws on the matter, 8th and 14th Amendment rights, and 28 USC 1257(a).



          Taking examples from Washington, you either plead guilty, not guilty, or not guilty by reason of insanity. The rules also state that




          Written notice of an intent to rely on the insanity defense, and/or a
          claim of present incompetency to stand trial, must be filed at the
          time of arraignment or within 10 days thereafter, or at such later
          time as the court may for good cause permit. All procedures
          concerning the defense of insanity or the competence of the defendant
          to stand trial are governed by RCW 10.77.




          RCW 10.77.030 says




          (1) Evidence of insanity is not admissible unless the defendant, at
          the time of arraignment or within ten days thereafter or at such later
          time as the court may for good cause permit, files a written notice of
          his or her intent to rely on such a defense.



          (2) Insanity is a defense which the defendant must establish by a
          preponderance of the evidence.




          This precludes making the argument after trial. (2) is a question of fact that has to be made by the jury, meaning that the evidence for and against the claim must have been introduced at trial (and there's no do-over if you don't like the outcome of the first trial).






          share|improve this answer













          I assume that the person alleges insanity at the time of the crime, and not incompetence to stand trial. The best but dim hope would be to introduce evidence as a mitigating factor for sentencing – this would not avoid a conviction, but you might think it could reduce the penalty. Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U.S. 517 says that you cannot (automatically) introduce mitigating evidence after the trial:




          the State may limit the innocence-related evidence he can introduce at
          that proceeding to the evidence he introduced at his original trial




          This case does not say that mitigating evidence can never be introduced at the sentencing phase, it says something complex about Oregon state laws on the matter, 8th and 14th Amendment rights, and 28 USC 1257(a).



          Taking examples from Washington, you either plead guilty, not guilty, or not guilty by reason of insanity. The rules also state that




          Written notice of an intent to rely on the insanity defense, and/or a
          claim of present incompetency to stand trial, must be filed at the
          time of arraignment or within 10 days thereafter, or at such later
          time as the court may for good cause permit. All procedures
          concerning the defense of insanity or the competence of the defendant
          to stand trial are governed by RCW 10.77.




          RCW 10.77.030 says




          (1) Evidence of insanity is not admissible unless the defendant, at
          the time of arraignment or within ten days thereafter or at such later
          time as the court may for good cause permit, files a written notice of
          his or her intent to rely on such a defense.



          (2) Insanity is a defense which the defendant must establish by a
          preponderance of the evidence.




          This precludes making the argument after trial. (2) is a question of fact that has to be made by the jury, meaning that the evidence for and against the claim must have been introduced at trial (and there's no do-over if you don't like the outcome of the first trial).







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Feb 10 at 19:55









          user6726user6726

          60.3k455102




          60.3k455102





















              1














              No, the defence must be offered at trial



              And, typically, the NGRI plea must be entered when the defendant pleas - courts do not generally allow a change of plea.



              Your proposed strategy doesn’t suffer from the plea. NGRI is an affirmative defence - the state still needs to prove their case, if they don’t the correct verdict is not guilty. The judge will direct a jury to find on that before they consider if the defence has made their insanity defence.






              share|improve this answer



























                1














                No, the defence must be offered at trial



                And, typically, the NGRI plea must be entered when the defendant pleas - courts do not generally allow a change of plea.



                Your proposed strategy doesn’t suffer from the plea. NGRI is an affirmative defence - the state still needs to prove their case, if they don’t the correct verdict is not guilty. The judge will direct a jury to find on that before they consider if the defence has made their insanity defence.






                share|improve this answer

























                  1












                  1








                  1







                  No, the defence must be offered at trial



                  And, typically, the NGRI plea must be entered when the defendant pleas - courts do not generally allow a change of plea.



                  Your proposed strategy doesn’t suffer from the plea. NGRI is an affirmative defence - the state still needs to prove their case, if they don’t the correct verdict is not guilty. The judge will direct a jury to find on that before they consider if the defence has made their insanity defence.






                  share|improve this answer













                  No, the defence must be offered at trial



                  And, typically, the NGRI plea must be entered when the defendant pleas - courts do not generally allow a change of plea.



                  Your proposed strategy doesn’t suffer from the plea. NGRI is an affirmative defence - the state still needs to prove their case, if they don’t the correct verdict is not guilty. The judge will direct a jury to find on that before they consider if the defence has made their insanity defence.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Feb 10 at 19:56









                  Dale MDale M

                  54.6k23578




                  54.6k23578



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37084%2fcan-ngroi-defense-be-argued-after-a-guilty-verdict%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown






                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                      Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

                      How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?