Recent Changes in Law Make Insanity Plea a ‘No-Win’ Defense

Judy Ann Wallace was found innocent of charges that she had threatened a female prosecutor with rape, mutilation and death, but she could wind up locked away far longer than if she had been convicted. She was acquitted by reason of insanity.

Lawyers say her case illustrates how an insanity plea has become a more risky defense in the wake of changes adopted since John W. Hinckley Jr. was found innocent by reason of insanity in the March, 1981, shooting of President Reagan.

“You might say it’s a no-win defense,” said John Yeager, a professor at the Drake University Law School here. “The probability is you are going to have fewer insanity verdicts.”

Mark Bennett, who defended Wallace in a similar case under the old law and is her lawyer again under the new law, said if a defendant is acquitted by reason of insanity, “The good news is you win, the bad news is that you face (indefinite) commitment procedures.”

Prison Psychiatric Ward

He said he wants his client to get treatment but not in a penal institution. She is now in the psychiatric ward at the federal prison in Lexington, Ky.

“I have to have help,” she said in an interview after a recent federal court hearing.

A stocky woman with short red hair and thick glasses, she said she was abused as a child. “It feels almost like I’ve got demons inside me,” she said, adding in calm, even tones: “There’s a dark side of me that wants to attack little girls, brutally attack women.”

Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Harold Vietor held that Wallace had failed to show that she no longer poses a danger to society, and he ordered her committed indefinitely in the prison ward. Bennett has appealed to the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing, among other things, that the federal law committing her until she can prove she no longer is a threat unconstitutionally deprives her of liberty without due process.

Under federal law at the time, Hinckley, who was acquitted of attempted assassination of the President and assault with intent to kill, would have been released--except that he was tried in the District of Columbia.

That was then the only federal jurisdiction that provided for committing people acquitted of crimes because of insanity. He remains confined to a hospital.

Revised Definition

Congress changed the rules in the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, providing for the indefinite commitment of people judged criminally insane.

The change also revised the definition of criminal insanity: to an inability to distinguish between right and wrong rather than an inability to control one’s actions.

It also precluded opinions from expert witnesses, allowing them only to describe a condition and let the jury decide, and placed the burden of proving insanity on the defense rather than making the prosecution prove sanity.

States have been similarly changing their laws governing the insanity defense, according to a study reported in an American Bar Assn. publication, Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter.

After Hinckley’s acquittal, the study said, 25 states changed procedures for committing and releasing people acquitted by reason of insanity. They are Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Washington.

Fifteen states placed the burden of proving insanity on the defendant. They are Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont and Wisconsin.

And 13 states now allow a finding of “guilty but mentally ill.” That recognizes a need for treatment but makes those convicted liable for return to prison if they recover. They are Alaska, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah.

Guilt Not an Issue

In Wallace’s case, no one is arguing that she is innocent of making terrifying threats.

Bennett said his aim is to end the federal commitment proceedings, but even if successful, Wallace still would have to complete an Iowa prison sentence for an earlier conviction. And after that she could be the subject of civil commitment proceedings by the state.

Wallace, 33, was diagnosed as schizophrenic when she was 15 and has been threatening public officials and private citizens for years.

A government psychologist recently diagnosed her as a pedophile, a person who has abnormal sexual attractions for children, and a sexual sadist who also has an antisocial personality disorder.

“If they released me today, something would happen to a young girl or woman in two hours,” she told a reporter.

Failed to Prove Sanity

In 1981, Wallace was acquitted by reason of insanity under the old law in a case involving threatening letters sent to a federal prosecutor in Des Moines. In that trial, the government had to prove that she was sane; it failed.

She would have been released, but she was still serving state sentences for second-degree burglary and threatening former Gov. Robert Ray.

Her challenge to the new insanity defense law followed her acquittal last year, on grounds of mental illness, of charges that she sent menacing letters in 1985 to Anne Lahey, an assistant county prosecutor who had taken her deposition.

Wallace threatened kidnap, sexual assault and mutilation in one letter and has threatened to kill the prosecutor, according to court records.

Although there is no evidence that she tried to carry out the threats, she has said she meant every word of them because she felt Lahey was looking down at her during the questioning.

Guy Cook, the assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted the case, noted that if Wallace had been convicted, the maximum sentence would be 15 years, and she would be eligible for parole after serving a portion of the sentence.

“For the people she’s victimized, it’s probably better” to have her indefinitely committed, Cook said.

Despite his challenge, Bennett said his client is better off committed than in a prison cell.

As it is now, he said, she can still fight her commitment and, “Hopefully, she’ll receive treatment.”