Frank v. United States

Background

A federal criminal defendant who pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity asked whether juries must be told what happens after such a verdict. Congress passed the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, which says the Attorney General must hospitalize a person found not guilty by reason of insanity until a State takes responsibility or the Attorney General decides release poses no risk to people or property (18 U.S.C. §4243(e)). The petition asked whether juries are entitled to an instruction explaining that statutory hospitalization.

Reasoning

Justice Stevens, writing while respecting the Court’s denial of review, explained the difference between denying review and deciding the merits. He said refusal to give the instruction can be plain error because jurors may reject a valid insanity defense for fear a dangerous person will be set free. Before 1984, different federal courts followed different rules because a national statute did not exist; the District of Columbia required the instruction because it already had a statute. Now that the 1984 law applies, Stevens argued the D.C. rule should be extended more widely. The Court nevertheless denied review, noting no clear split among appellate courts had arisen and the Court often waits for such a conflict.

Real world impact

The denial leaves the legal question unresolved for federal defendants, trial judges, and juries. It preserves current uncertainty while signaling that courts may have reason to require the instruction in appropriate cases. Because this was a denial of review, the issue can still be decided in future cases or by the Court if a conflict between appeals courts develops.