Hannah Nemanic

CRJ-3200: Courts & Trials

United States v. John Hinckley

On the day following the verdict in United States v. John Hinckley, an ABC News poll

revealed that three-quarters of Americans felt that “justice had not been done” (Hans and Slater,

1983, p. 202). Justice is often in the eye of the beholder. However, at the bare minimum, justice

requires an accurate application of the relevant law. United States v. John Hinckley provides an

example of how the view of justice can change over time as laws evolve.

A majority of the arguments presented in court revolved around the idea of insanity. In

1982, the burden fell upon the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hinckley was

sane. However, a few years after the Hinckley verdict, the burden of proof shifted to the defense.

In 1982, the jury accurately applied the insanity law because the defense provided evidence that

created reasonable doubt. Under today’s standards, with the burden of proof resting on the

defense, the defense would not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hinckley was

insane. Therefore, the verdict was just in 1982, but it would not be just today.

A. Case Facts

On March 30, 1981, President Ronald Reagan delivered a speech to the union members

of AFL-CIO at the Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C. (Federal Bureau of Investigation,

1981). President Reagan concluded his speech around 2:00 PM and began preparations to

leave the hotel (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1981). At 2:25 PM, President Reagan exited

the Hilton Hotel. As he approached his limousine, six shots were fired from a handgun. One

bullet hit President in the chest, and a second bullet struck Press Secretary James Brady in
the head (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1981). Two other bullets hit Secret Service Agent

Timothy McCarthy and Officer Thomas Delahanty (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1981).

Immediately following the shooting, members of the Secret Service and officers of the

Metropolitan and Park Police detained John Hinckley (Federal Bureau of Investigation,

1981). Additionally, Hinckley dropped a .22 caliber revolver, which had “six spent casings”

(Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1981). Hinckley was taken to the Metropolitan Police

Department where he was turned over to the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1981).

In August 1981, a Federal grand jury indicted John Hinckley on 13 charges, including

“attempted assassination of the President of the United States, assault on a federal officer

United States Secret service agent, use of a firearm in the commission of a federal offence,

and other District of Columbia Code offenses” (Pear, 1981 & United States v. Hinckley, 525

F. Supp. 1342). Following three days of deliberation, a jury found Hinckley “not guilty by

reason of insanity” on all 13 charges (Linder, 2007).

B. While justice was achieved at the time of the Hinckley trial, the views of justice have

changed due to the shift of burden in insanity cases.

Most of the defense’s testimony revolved around proving John Hinckley was

legally insane. The law of insanity provided that a defendant “was not deemed criminally

responsible for his acts if, at the time of the commission of the crime, the defendant, as a

result of mental disease or defect, lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the

wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law”

(Fuller, 2000). At the time of the Hinckley trial, the burden of proof fell upon the

prosecution to prove John Hinckley was sane and could appreciate the wrongfulness of

his conduct (Morse, 2021).

 Both the prosecution and defense presented several experts regarding the mental state

of Hinckley on March 30, 1981. As expected, the government’s experts determined

Hinckley could appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions, while the defense’s experts

found Hinckley insane (Linder, 2007).

a. Prosecution’s Case

In closing arguments, Roger Adelman, explains the two-part analysis

involved in the insanity defense: (1) does the individual have a mental disease or

defect and (2) could the individual appreciate the wrongfulness or conform his

behavior to the requirement of the law (1982). The prosecution and their experts

agree with the defense that John Hinckley did have mental disorders (Adelman,

1982). However, the prosecution chose to frame the evidence in an attempt to

prove Hinckley could appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions (Adelman,

1982). Therefore, the prosecution instructed the jury to find Hinckley criminally

responsible for his conduct regardless of his mental health diagnosis.

During the trial, the government called Dr. Park Elliot Dietz, a forensic

psychiatrist, to discuss Hinckley’s mental state at the time of the attempted

assassination. Dr. Dietz concluded that on March 30, 1981, “as a result of mental

disease or defect, Mr. Hinckley did not lack substantial capacity to conform his

conduct to the requirements of the law” (Dietz, 1982).

Dr. Dietz relied on several actions performed by Hinckley leading up to

the assassination attempt. For example, Hinckley deliberated and chose to survey

the scene at the Hilton Hotel (Dietz, 1982). Hinckley’s decision-making ability

showed that he understood what he was doing (Dietz, 1982). Dr. Dietz also
pointed to Hinckley concealing the weapon. By concealing the weapon, Hinckley

showed that he recognized that “waving a gun would be behavior to likely attract

attention” (Dietz, 1982). Thus, Hinckley was conforming his behavior to the

requirements of the law (Dietz, 1982).

Additionally, Dr. Dietz pointed out that Hinckley waited until the

President was in close range. Hinckley also had a “two-handed hold” on the gun

and tracked the President’s movements (Dietz, 1982). Dr. Dietz asserts that

Hinckley’s tracking motions are a sign of an organized act. Hinckley was not

under extreme distress randomly firing shots. He had control and understood his

actions (Dietz, 1982).

Prosecutor Adelman further questioned Dr. Dietz to explain why Hinckley

could appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct. Dr. Dietz began by explaining

Hinckley’s obsession and extensive research of assassinations and the fame

associated with assassination (Dietz, 1982). Dr. Dietz concluded that Hinckley’s

research would have exposed the wrongfulness of such actions.

Dr. Dietz also stated that Hinckley made a conscious effort to conceal his

plans from his family and doctors. In Dr. Dietz’s expert opinion, the concealment

of his plans “indicates that he appreciated the wrongfulness of his plans” (Dietz,

1982). Lastly, the government’s expert pointed to the letter Hinckley wrote to

Jodie Foster before leaving for the Hilton. In the letter, Hinckley stated that he

may be killed by the Secret Service (Dietz, 1982). Hinckley’s acknowledgment

that he may be killed indicates he understood and appreciated the wrongfulness of

his assassination attempt (Dietz, 1982).

b. Defense’s Case

The defense admitted that Hinckley committed the crimes. However, the

defense argued that Hinckley was legally insane at the time of the crime because

he could not appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions. Defense attorney Vincent

Fuller direct examined Dr. William T. Carpenter, one of the main expert

witnesses for the defense.

First, Dr. Carpenter established that Hinckley suffered from a mental

disease, specifically delusions (Carpenter, 1982). Dr. Carpenter asserted that

delusions are false beliefs not shared by others, and “evidence that would show it

is not, in fact, accurate doesn’t shake the belief that the person has” (Carpenter,

1982). Dr. Carpenter drew upon Hinckley’s obsession with actress Jodie Foster.

Hinckley developed a delusion that he and Foster were meant to be together, and

he would do anything to impress her. The letter written to Jodie Foster prior to

Hinckley heading to the Hilton stated that he hoped his “historic deed” would

finally gain her love and respect (Carpenter, 1982).

Dr. Carpenter argued that Hinckley’s delusions about Jodie Foster

prevented him from appreciating the wrongfulness of his actions. Hinckley was so

obsessed that he only considered assassinating President Reagan as a means to

impress Foster (Carpenter, 1982). Thus, Hinckley could not apply reason to his

plans to assassinate the President (Carpenter, 1982). He never considered the

implications of his actions on others or himself (Carpenter, 1982).

 Dr. Carpenter diagnosed Hinckley as legally insane at the time of the

crime. Hinckley suffered from severe delusions, which caused him to lack the

ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions.

c. Reasonable Doubt & Application of Insanity Law

In 1982, the prosecution had the burden to prove beyond a reasonable

doubt that John Hinckley could appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions (Morse,

2021). The prosecution and the defense presented contradictory testimony for

psychological experts. The jury had to weigh both sides of testimony to determine

which to believe.

With the burden of proof resting on the prosecution, the defense only had

to insert reasonable doubt into the jurors’ minds. Dr. Carpenter’s testimony about

Hinckley’s delusions certainly poked some holes into the prosecution’s story. It is

reasonable to assume that Dr. Carpenter’s testimony caused some level of

reasonable doubt among the jury. Therefore, the jury returned a “not guilty by

reason of insanity” verdict on all 13 charges.

At the time of Hinckley’s trial, the not guilty verdict held up to the

definition of justice. The prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that Hinckley could appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions. Therefore, the

verdict was an accurate application of the relevant law.

Following the public’s uproar of the Hinckley verdict, there were many

calls to reform the insanity defense (Morse, 2021). Eventually, under 18 U.S.C. §

17(B), the burden of proof shifted to the defense (Linder, 2007). If the Hinckley
 trial took place after the burden of proof change, the outcome of the case would

have been different.

To reach justice, the jury would need to accurately apply the new insanity

burden of proof. The prosecution’s evidence of Hinckley’s actions on March 30,

1981 provides reasonable doubt to the defense’s argument of Hinckley’s

delusions. The defense would not meet the burden of proof. Subsequently, the

jury would find the insanity defense invalid and Hinckley guilty of his actions.

Clearly, the shift in burden of proof in insanity cases changed the

perspective of justice. While the case achieved justice originally, the “not guilty

by reason of insanity” verdict would not achieve justice under today’s standards.

C. Conclusion

Justice requires the accurate application of the relevant law. At the time of the

Hinckley trial, the prosecution held the burden of proof to show Hinckley could

appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions. The defense was able to cast doubt on the

prosecution’s arguments. Thus, the jury appropriately applied the inanity law and found

Hinckley “not guilty by reason of insanity.

Once the burden of proof was shifted to the defense, the verdict is no longer just

under today’s standards. The prosecution provided enough evidence that Hinckley could

appreciate his conduct providing reasonable doubt of his insanity. To appropriately apply

the law, the jury would need to find Hinckley guilty. Therefore, United States v. John

Hinckley provides an example of how the view of justice can change over time when

laws evolve.
 References

Adelman, R. (1982) The John Hinckley Trial Argument on Behalf of the Government. American

Journal of Trial Advocacy, 6(1), 94-129.

Carpenter, W. (1982). Direct Examination.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hinckleytranscript.htm#Dr.

%20David

Dietz, P. (1982). Direct Examination.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hinckleytranscript.htm#Dr.

%20David

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1981). Prosecutive Report: John Warnock Hinckley, Jr.

Attempted Assassination of Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.

https://vault.fbi.gov/president-ronald-reagan-assassination-attempt/president-ronald-

reagan-assassination-attempt-part-01-of-04/view

Fuller, V. J. (1999). United States v. John W. Hinckley Jr.(1982). Loy. LAL Rev., 33, 699.

Hans, V. P., & Slater, D. (1983). John Hinckley, Jr. and the insanity defense: The public's

verdict. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(2), 202-212.

Linder, D. (2007). The Trial of John W. Hinckley, Jr. Hinckley, Jr.

file:///C:/Users/neman/Downloads/SSRN-id1030556.pdf

Morse, S. (2021). Before and After Hinckley: Legal Insanity in the United States. U of Penn Law

School, Public Law Research Paper, (21-08).

Pear, R. (1981, August). Jury Indicts Hinckley on 13 Counts Based on Shooting of President.

The New York Times, Section A, Page 17. https://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/25/us/jury-

indicts-hinckley-on-13-counts-based-on-shooting-of-president.html

United States v. Hinckley, 525 F. Supp. 1342 (D.D.C. 1981).

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/525/1342/1692613/