Switch to ADA Accessible Website
Orlando Criminal Lawyer

U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Survival of Insanity Defense


The U.S. Supreme Court kicks off its new term on October 7, and has several “blockbuster” criminal law cases that raise significant questions for criminal defendants.

Kahler v. Kansas

The first of those cases–Kahler v. Kansas–considers the constitutionality of a state statute that one criminal defendant (Kraig Kahler) argues abolished the insanity defense (while the state maintains it is simply “redefining” insanity’s role in culpability). The case involves a defendant who was sentenced to death for killing his ex-wife, two daughters, and mother-in-law in 2009. The state is arguing that criminal defendant Kahler is not insane because his actions are proof that he had a “requisite intent to commit the murders” and, in doing so, it has blocked his ability from using the insanity defense at all in court. In response, Kahler argues that this approach (i.e. the state’s statute dictating what can and cannot be presented in court) violates the eighth amendment (prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment) and 14th amendment (guarantee to due process of law) because it denies him the right to present an insanity defense even though he lacked the moral capacity to tell right from wrong when he committed these crimes. While the state admits that it no longer allows for insanity as an affirmative defense in criminal trials, it claims that the statute is still constitutional because it allows for a defendant to admit evidence of mental disease or defects, which then effectively allows for mentally ill defendants to be found exempt from criminal liability.

A number of law professors and philosophers around the country filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that the state law cannot be constitutional because a mentally ill defendant can form intent to commit a crime while still being unable to tell the difference between right or wrong, which means they are unable to comprehend the consequences of their actions. In other words, someone can have an intent to kill without necessarily being able to understand the morality of the act. They argue that, if the state law is upheld, and the insanity defense is abolished in one state, defendants will be punished, regardless of this understanding of responsibility, and this could encourage other states to pass similar laws. This is arguably antithetical to what a number of societies have long held; that the ability to tell right from wrong is a prerequisite to culpability.

Ramos v. Louisiana

The other criminal case before the Court—Ramos v. Louisiana—poses the question of whether a criminal defendant can be convicted without a unanimous verdict from the jury. The defendant was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole and a state intermediate appeals court rejected his argument that the Sixth Amendment—which guarantees our right to an “impartial jury”—necessarily requires a unanimous jury verdict.

Contact Our Florida Criminal Defense Attorneys If You Have Been Charged with A Crime

If you have been charged with a crime in Florida, contact our experienced Orlando criminal attorneys at the Baez Law Firm today to find out how we can provide you with the very best in legal advice and representation.






  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Miami Office

1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1410
Miami, FL 33131
Office: 305-999-5100
Fax: 305-999-5111

Orlando Office

250 N Orange Ave, Suite 750
Orlando, FL 32801
Office: 407-705-2626
Fax: 407-705-2625

Email Us

Fields Marked * Are required

DISCLAIMER: Completing and submitting this form or otherwise merely contacting The Baez Law Firm or any individual at the firm will not establish an attorney/client relationship. Our firm cannot represent you until we determine that there would be no conflict of interest and that we are otherwise able to accept representation of your case. Please do not send any information or documents until a formal attorney/client relationship has been established through an interview with an attorney and you have been given authorization in the form of an engagement letter with The Baez Law Firm. Any information or documents sent via this form or otherwise prior to your receipt of an engagement letter will not be treated as confidences, secrets, or protected information of any nature. Submitting information regarding your potential case will not bar The Baez Law Firm from representing or continuing to represent a person or entity whose interest are adverse to your in condition with your case.

protected by reCAPTCHA Privacy - Terms
Please review the highlighted fields. They are required.
DISCLAIMER: This website contains information about The Baez Law Firm that includes testimonial statements from persons who are familiar with the firm's services. The testimonials shown are not necessarily representative of every person's experience with us. Testimonials from every client are not provided. As no two situations or persons are identical, the facts and circumstances of your situation may differ from those for which testimonials are shown. This website also includes information about some of the past results that we have obtained for our clients. Not all results are provided, and the results shown are not necessarily representative of all results obtained by us. No two situation are exactly alike; every person's situation is unique and the outcome for each person depends on the individual facts.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.
MileMark Media - Practice Growth Solutions

© 2015 - 2024 Baez Law Firm. All rights reserved.
This law firm website and legal marketing are managed by MileMark Media.

Contact Form Tab Contact Form Tab