UNITED STATES V. BRAWNER 471 F.2d 969 (1972) CASE BRIEF

UNITED STATES V. BRAWNER

471 F.2d 969 (1972)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a rehearing en banc of an appeal by Brawner (D) from the lower court from a conviction for second degree murder and carrying a dangerous weapon upon issues arising from D's defense of insanity.

FACTS: After a morning and afternoon of wine-drinking, D and his uncle Aaron Ross, went to a party at the home of three acquaintances. During the evening, several fights broke out. D's jaw was injured when he was struck or pushed to the ground. The time of the fight was approximately 10:30 p.m. After the fight, D left the party. Ross testified that D 'looked like he was out of his mind'. D's mouth was bleeding and that his speech was unclear, he was staggering and angry, and that he pounded on a mailbox with his fist. D said that 'someone is going to die tonight.' Half an hour later D returned to the party with a gun. D said he was going up there to kill his attackers or be killed. D fired a shot into the ground and entered the building. D then fired five shots through the closed metal hallway door. Two of the shots struck Billy Ford, killing him. D was arrested a few minutes later, several blocks away. The arresting officer testified that D appeared normal, and did not appear to be drunk, that he spoke clearly, and had no odor of alcohol about him. At trial the expert witnesses, called by both defense and prosecution, all agreed that D was suffering from an abnormality of a psychiatric or neurological nature. The medical labels were variously given as 'epileptic personality disorder,' 'psychologic brain syndrome associated with a convulsive disorder,' 'personality disorder associated with epilepsy,' or, more simply, 'an explosive personality. ' There was no disagreement that the epileptic condition would be exacerbated by alcohol, leading to more frequent episodes and episodes of greater intensity, and would also be exacerbated by a physical blow to the head. The experts agreed that epilepsy per se is not a mental disease or defect, but a neurological disease which is often associated with a mental disease or defect. They further agreed that D had a mental, as well as a neurological, disease. The experts disagreed on whether the mental disease played a part in Ford's death. The prosecution claimed not and the defense claimed yes. The prosecutor asked the Government's first expert witness Dr. Weickhardt: 'Did you . . . come to any opinion concerning whether or not the crimes in this case were causally related to the mental illness which you diagnosed?' An objection to the form of the question was overruled. The witness then set forth that in his opinion there was no causal relationship between the mental disorder and the alleged offenses. D claims that the trial court erred when it permitted a prosecution expert to testify in this manner.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner