U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1970

United States v. Burton Strout Marks

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided June 24, 1970 · Browning, Wright, Trask

429 F.2d 587; 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8531 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Paul N. Halvonik, San Francisco, Gal. (argued), Charles C. Marson, of American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, Burton Strout Marks, San Jose, Cal., for appellant., Paul Fitzgerald (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., James L. Browning, Jr., U. S. Atty., Michael Metzger, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Diamond State Ins. Co. v. Homestead Industries, Inc. (4th Cir. 1992)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this prosecution for burning a draft card, 50 U.S.C. App. § 462(b) (3), there was expert testimony that the appellant suffered from severe anxieties and could not control his actions. The District Court, following the M’Naghten Rules, instructed the jury to find appellant not guilty by reason of insanity if his will was so “completely destroyed or impaired” that he was incapable of conforming his conduct to the requirements of the law. Under our decision in Wade v. United States, 426 F.2d 64 (9th Cir. 1970) (en banc), the jury should have been instructed to acquit by reason of insanity if they found that appellant lacked “substantial capacity” to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. Wade controls this case, since the conviction was not final on March 30, 1970.

Reversed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.