United States v. Gary Vance Lewellyn
1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 14284, 76 A.L.R. Fed. 739, 723 F.2d 615 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant seeking to raise an insanity defense based on a novel scientific or psychiatric theory must first make a minimum showing that the principle connecting the alleged mental disorder to an incapacity to conform conduct to the law is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.
Facts:
- Gary Lewellyn, a stockbroker, converted over $17 million in money and securities from two Iowa banks.
- Lewellyn was a pathological, or compulsive, gambler.
- The largest share of the embezzled funds was used by Lewellyn to finance stock and commodities speculation.
- Lewellyn claimed that his pathological gambling rendered him unable to abstain from gambling and, consequently, unable to avoid breaking the law to obtain funds for gambling.
Procedural Posture:
- Gary Lewellyn was indicted in federal district court for embezzlement, making a false statement, and mail fraud.
- The government filed a pretrial motion to preclude Lewellyn from presenting an insanity defense based on pathological gambling.
- The district court held a hearing and granted the government's motion, excluding all evidence related to the defense.
- Lewellyn waived his right to a jury trial and was convicted on all counts by the court based on stipulated evidence.
- Lewellyn, as the appellant, appealed the conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, with the government as the appellee.
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 make the required minimum showing to raise an insanity defense based on pathological gambling for charges of embezzlement, where the scientific principle linking the disorder to an inability to refrain from such criminal acts is not generally accepted in the mental health community?
Opinions:
Majority - Fagg, Circuit Judge
No. A defendant fails to make the required minimum showing to present an insanity defense based on pathological gambling when there is insufficient evidence that the principle linking the disorder to the criminal conduct is generally accepted in the scientific community. To raise an insanity defense, a defendant must present evidence that dispels the presumption of sanity. When this defense is based on a scientific principle, that principle must meet the Frye standard of being 'sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.' Here, Lewellyn's expert testimony suggested a link between pathological gambling and an inability to refrain from embezzlement. However, the court found that pathological gambling was a recently recognized disorder with which few mental health professionals had experience. The record lacked evidence, either from the DSM-III or expert testimony, that the principle—that pathological gamblers lack substantial capacity to conform their conduct to laws against embezzlement—was generally accepted in psychology or psychiatry. Therefore, Lewellyn failed to make the required minimum showing, and the district court's exclusion of the defense was proper.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing a high threshold for the use of novel psychiatric conditions as the basis for an insanity defense. By applying the Frye 'general acceptance' standard to the preliminary question of whether a defense can be raised at all, the court limits the introduction of emerging or controversial scientific theories in criminal trials. The decision effectively requires that the causal link between a mental disorder and a specific criminal act be well-established within the scientific community before it can be presented to a jury. This precedent makes it more difficult for defendants to rely on new or less-studied psychological disorders, such as impulse-control disorders, to excuse financial crimes.
