# United States v. Raymond Charles Shapiro

> Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · August 24, 1967 · 383 F.2d 680

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9453024

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond Charles SHAPIRO, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- **Decided:** August 24, 1967
- **Citations:** 383 F.2d 680; 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5264
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Hastings
- **Judges:** Hastings, Duffy, Schnackenberg, Knoch, Castle, Kiley, Swygert, Fairchild, Cummings
- **Cited by:** 82 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9453024

## Opinion text

HASTINGS, Chief Judge
(affirming in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the majority opinion, except as to that part reversing the judgment of conviction and remanding the case for a new trial.
I agree that we should take a new look at the insanity rule to be applicable in the Seventh Circuit and that henceforth all district courts in the Seventh Circuit should follow the American Law Institute definition as set out in the majority opinion. Such a course of action is in keeping with the times and modern judicial trends.
However, I do not agree that the use of the insanity instruction given by the district court in the trial of this case amounted to prejudicial error requiring a reversal and a new trial.
I would affirm the judgment of conviction and make the application of this case prospective hereafter.
SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge.
I would affirm the judgment of conviction of defendant Shapiro. With respect to Judge Fairchild’s exhaustive consideration of the Davis, M’Naghten and Durham rules and the ALI, definition, it must be remembered that the crucial decision with respect to the mental state of the defendant on trial rests with the jury, after it has heard the evidence and the court’s instructions, and has had an opportunity to personally observe the de *689 fendant. United States v. Igoe, Judge, 7 Cir., 331 F.2d 766, 767-768 (1964).
Fortunately, our society can trust the consensus of the jurors in making this determination, regardless of the diffieulty lawyers and judges may experience in agreeing upon a statement defining insanity as a defense in a criminal trial.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9453024. Public record. Not legal advice.