http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2006/12/12/an-insanity-instruction-is-required-even-without-expert-testimony-on-insanity/ Latest news involving the Cook County Public Defenders Association AFSCME LOCAL 3315 Tue, 06 Jan 2009 07:52:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2006/12/12/an-insanity-instruction-is-required-even-without-expert-testimony-on-insanity/comment-page-1/#comment-447 Julie Hull Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:29:13 +0000 http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2006/12/12/an-insanity-instruction-is-required-even-without-expert-testimony-on-insanity/#comment-447 The State's PLA was denied in this case on March 28th. So, unless a motion to reconsider is granted, one does not need an expert to get an insanity instruction. The State’s PLA was denied in this case on March 28th. So, unless a motion to reconsider is granted, one does not need an expert to get an insanity instruction.

]]> http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2006/12/12/an-insanity-instruction-is-required-even-without-expert-testimony-on-insanity/comment-page-1/#comment-6 Julie Hull Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:41:16 +0000 http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2006/12/12/an-insanity-instruction-is-required-even-without-expert-testimony-on-insanity/#comment-6 Also, important in this case of mine is the holding that when Expert A uses the report of Expert B as part of the basis of his or her opinion, and Expert B does not testify, defendant is entitled to a limiting jury instruction stating that Expert B's report and opinions contained therein are not to be considered as substantive evidence or for the truth of the matter asserted. In this case, Expert B testified that Defendant was malingering insanity at the time of the offense because he gave an exculpatory statement to to Expert A (2 years after the offense)but told Expert B (4 years later) he could not remember the event. Hence, according to Expert B, defendant was malingering insanity. This limiting instruction is rooted in Wilson v. Clark 84 Ill.2d 186 (1981) Note, however, the Federal Rules of Evidence 703 & 705 flat out prohibit Expert B's report, data or opinions from being conveyed to the jury. Unfortunately, I could not persuade the First District to adopt this position, so the limiting instruction is still our only remedy. Also, important in this case of mine is the holding that when Expert A uses the report of Expert B as part of the basis of his or her opinion, and Expert B does not testify, defendant is entitled to a limiting jury instruction stating that Expert B’s report and opinions contained therein are not to be considered as substantive evidence or for the truth of the matter asserted. In this case, Expert B testified that Defendant was malingering insanity at the time of the offense because he gave an exculpatory statement to to Expert A (2 years after the offense)but told Expert B (4 years later) he could not remember the event. Hence, according to Expert B, defendant was malingering insanity. This limiting instruction is rooted in Wilson v. Clark 84 Ill.2d 186 (1981) Note, however, the Federal Rules of Evidence 703 & 705 flat out prohibit Expert B’s report, data or opinions from being conveyed to the jury. Unfortunately, I could not persuade the First District to adopt this position, so the limiting instruction is still our only remedy.

]]>