Delahanty v. Hinckley
1992 WL 249590, 799 F. Supp. 184, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12107 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An acquittal in a criminal trial by reason of insanity does not preclude a subsequent civil tort action on the issue of sanity due to differing standards of proof. Furthermore, under the common law, an individual's insanity is not a defense to liability for compensatory damages in a tort action.
Facts:
- John W. Hinckley, Jr. fired a gun in an attempt to assassinate the President of the United States.
- Plaintiffs James Scott Brady and others were near the President at the time of the shooting.
- Bullets fired by Hinckley struck and injured the plaintiffs.
- Hinckley asserted that at the time of the shooting, he was in a 'deluded and psychotic state of mind'.
Procedural Posture:
- John W. Hinckley, Jr. was tried in a federal criminal proceeding.
- A jury found Hinckley not guilty by reason of insanity on all criminal counts.
- Following the criminal verdict, Hinckley was involuntarily committed to a hospital for the mentally ill.
- The plaintiffs, who were injured during the shooting, filed a civil tort lawsuit against Hinckley in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking damages.
- Hinckley, the defendant, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that the criminal verdict should prevent the court from finding him liable in the civil case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's acquittal in a criminal trial by reason of insanity preclude a subsequent civil trial on his liability for compensatory and punitive damages arising from the same act?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge John Garrett Penn
No. A defendant's prior acquittal by reason of insanity in a criminal case does not prevent victims from suing him in a civil case for damages. Regarding compensatory damages, the court follows the well-established common law rule that an insane person is liable for the torts they commit. This rule prioritizes compensating the innocent victim, based on the principle that where one of two innocent persons must suffer a loss, it should fall on the one who caused it. Regarding punitive damages, while an insane person is not liable for them, the defendant's sanity remains a genuine issue of fact for trial. The prior criminal acquittal does not resolve this issue for the civil case due to the doctrine of issue preclusion. The burden of proof in the criminal trial (where the government had to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt) is different from the burden in the civil trial (where the defendant must prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence). This difference in evidentiary standards means the issue of sanity was not actually decided in a way that can be carried over to the civil proceeding.
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms the distinction between the standards of proof in criminal and civil law and its effect on the doctrine of issue preclusion. It demonstrates that a favorable verdict in a criminal case, where the standard is 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' does not automatically shield a defendant from liability in a civil case, where the standard is merely a 'preponderance of the evidence.' The decision also upholds the long-standing, though sometimes criticized, common law tort principle that prioritizes victim compensation over a tortfeasor's mental state. This ruling ensures that victims of torts committed by mentally ill individuals have a path to financial recovery, reinforcing that civil liability focuses on compensating harm, not on the moral culpability required for criminal punishment.
