02-1257 & 02-1258 U.S. v. Waagner

Listen to this article

“Waagner … argues that the district court erred in refusing his proffered insanity instruction which would have told the jury he would be committed to a ‘suitable facility’ if he was found not guilty by reason of insanity. This instruction was necessary, he contends, because his prior bad acts and mental state would have caused the jury to believe he might be released and return to his anti-abortion mission, if his insanity defense was accepted. We review de novo a district court’s decision to not give a jury instruction. See United States v. Andreas, 216 F.3d 645, 668-69 (7th Cir. 2000).

“The Seventh Circuit pattern jury instructions for federal criminal trials address this issue. The committee comment to Instruction 6.02 states, ‘In Shannon v. United States, 512 U.S. 573 (1994), the Supreme Court held that a jury may be instructed on [the] automatic commitment requirement of sec. 4243, but only to counteract inaccurate or misleading information presented to the jury during trial.’ Waagner does not argue that the government presented inaccurate or misleading information to the jury, so there was no reason for the district judge to give his proposed instruction. See, e.g., United States v. Fisher, 10 F.3d 115, 122-23 (3d Cir. 1993) (consequences instruction unnecessary when prosecutor did not suggest that defendant would be a danger to the community if found insane); United States v. Thigpen, 4 F.3d 1573, 1578 (11th Cir. 1993) (consequences instruction appropriate if government presents inadmissible evidence, argument, or questions implying that defendant will be released back into society if found insane).”

Affirmed.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Baker, J., Evans, J.