Confronting the Burden of Proof under the Federal Insanity Defense

On March 5, 1843, in response to the equivalent of a motion for an instructed verdict, Lord Chief Justice Tindal of the Central Criminal Court in London declared that Daniel M’Naghten was not guilty of murdering Mr. Edward Drummond because of insanity.1 Although the insanity defense was not new to the law of England in 1843, the Parliamentary response to Daniel M’Naghten’s acquittal elevated the concept to a controversial prominence from which it has not escaped.