The Supreme Court began this Term obsessed with death-penalty minutiae - much the the chagrin of criminal law wonks. Yet a few weeks ago the Court agreed to hear two very important Crawford-related cases. And today the Court agreed to hear whether, as a matter of constitutional law, a criminal defendant must be able to present a certain theory of the insanity defense, namely that he did not appreciate the nature of his conduct because of a mental disease or defect. Clark v. Arizona, No. 05-5966. I hope this is the beginning of a trend.
Orin Kerr and Lyle Denniston are providing excellent case coverage. (Orin has the lower court opinion here; Lyle broke the story here.) At Cornell Law School's Wiki is this great summary of the issues involved in an insanity defense. This excellent overview will help the reader better understand the issue before the Court.
Expect the Court's judicial conservatives to work over Clark's lawyer, asking why, as a matter of federal due process, a criminal defendant must be able to present a certain defense theory. Isn't this an issue best left to the states? I think Clark's lawyer is going to have a tough time winning his case. As a matter of policy, I think that a criminal defendant should be able to present the mental-defect defense. But as a matter of federal constitutional law? That's a hard case to sell: I'm not sure I'd even buy it. (Then again, I also haven't read the briefs; so perhaps I'm missing something important.)
