“Based on these stipulated findings of fact I find by clear and convincing evidence that at the time of the event, Mr. Harris was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of the wrongfulness of his acts.”
That’s U.S. Judge Regina Rodriguez, rendering a verdict in the trial of Matthew Harris. “The defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity of counts one through four of the indictment,” Rodriguez said, according to Courthouse News Service.
Harris, a couple of years ago, had sent threatening messages to members of the Department of Philosophy at UCLA, where he had been a postdoctoral fellow, and authored an 803-page manifesto. Background on this story is here.
An article about the verdict is here.
(Sorry for the short post — it’s a busy day.)
“Authored an 803-page manifesto and later found to be legally insane while doing so” describes so much of philosophy.
I appreciate the attempt to lighten the mood, but this was very, very, very not funny–and actually terrifying–for the people who had to deal with it.
I had reason to believe Harris was in Boulder (as was I) when all this went down, and the night before his arrest, I stayed up late combing through the manifesto to see if he had threatened our department, then sent my findings to our chair. (Answer: not really, there were a few general threats against CU but nothing department-specific). The next day I had to explain to my confused students why they walked past a SWAT team to reach class. It was indeed very frightening, especially coming so close to the 2021 Boulder shooting.
Anyway, I thought Jake’s post was funny, and I wasn’t offended in the least, though ofc taste and sensitivity to such things will differ person-to-person!
Maybe “unable to appreciate the nature and quality of the wrongfulness of actions” is not identical to “insanity”?
It’s the feds’ legal test for insanity, called the Mnaghten test.
The American Law Institute Model Code used to employ federally a second volitional prong–the inability to conform one’s actions to the law–a question of free will basically–but it was eliminated by Congress after the Hinckley case in 1984. That’s why he got off–the prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was sane by the McNaughten rule that Yost cites as well as the volitional prong (that’s why the jury wept as they delivered the verdict–reasonable doubt was a no-brainer there). The new law reduced the test entirely to the McNaughten Rule (essentially the ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of actions) and shifted the burden of proof to the defense, but also lowered the burden of proof to clear and convincing evidence (that the defendant was insane), which stands between PBRD and the lowest rational proof standard–preponderance–which civil courts typically rely on. State laws are all over the map as to these evaluations, from the full ALI Code to the current fed standard to 4 states entirely rejecting the insanity plea. FWWI.
Could someone with knowledge about legal matters describe what this means? Does it mean he’s now simply ‘free’ or does it mean he has to remain in some sort of medical facility?
Not a lawyer, this isn’t legal advice. However, I do have some legal work experience and found this federal statute somewhat illuminating: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4243.
The statute relates to the special verdict of “not guilty by reason of insanity” for federal crimes. All quotes below are from the text of the statute (including any unfortunately ableist language in that text).
To be very clear, I’m really not talking any specifics about this case—the only facts from it I’m taking for granted are that the crimes at issue were federal and there was a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
As with many legal questions, the answer seems to be, it depends.
What I glean from the text of the statute is that a person who receives such a verdict will be committed to a federal facility until there can be a hearing about their current mental state. This happens rather quickly (compared to most legal proceedings): “not later than forty days following the special verdict.”
“the court shall order that a psychiatric or psychological
examination of the defendant be conducted, and that a psychiatric or psychological report be filed with the court” That report will be part of the hearing.
It’s the person’s burden to show “his release would not create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage of property of another due to a present mental disease or defect.” The standard of proof is different depending on whether or not “an offense involving bodily injury to, or serious damage to the property of, another person, or involving a substantial
risk of such injury or damage.” I don’t know enough about this area or this particular case to know which standard would be applied.
I’m less confident in summarizing the rest of the statute (what happens depending on the possible outcomes of the hearing). My best understanding is that there are three broad outcomes:
1) Judge decides the person has met the burden of proof and has successfully shown they don’t present a substantial risk. The judge orders them discharged (free).
2) Judge decides the person has conditionally met the burden of proof, showing that “his conditional release under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment would no longer create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another.” So the judge orders a conditional release with specified treatment. I don’t know what kind of restrictions on movement, check in requirements, etc. would be involved.
3) Judge decides that the person has failed to show that they don’t present a substantial risk, even with conditional release. They stay in a government facility until, theoretically, the facility determines they no longer present a substantial risk if they are fully discharged or conditionally released. The facility is then supposed to notify the court, which holds a hearing. That hearing presumably results in one of outcomes 1-3).
Tl;dr: It depends. When a person receives a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity for a federal crime, there is a hearing within 40 days about whether or not they present a substantial risk to other people or their property. Depending on the outcome of that hearing, the person will go free, be conditionally released with required treatment, or remain committed to a federal facility until and unless that facility judges enough improvement in their psychological state to call for another hearing about potential release.
The Courthouse News Link says the judge ordered hospitalization.
I agree that the judge ordered him committed upon the special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. However, as communicated by the statute (18 U.S.C. 4243), this is standard procedure in such verdicts and does not necessarily indicate a final determination.
That is, as I noted in my entry above, people are committed pending a hearing about whether or not they will be committed in the future.
The Courthouse News article does not specify whether he has been committed pending such a hearing, or whether perhaps defense and prosecution came to some sort of agreement that he will be committed for the foreseeable future and no hearing is necessary.
I did a bit of digging and found a copy of the docket of the case. The Entry 101 suggests that he has been ordered committed pending a hearing, given that a hearing has been scheduled for October 29, 2024.
The docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63135875/united-states-v-harris/
The text of entry 101 from the docket: “COURTROOM MINUTES for Bench Trial as to Matthew Christopher Harris held before Judge Regina M. Rodriguez on 9/19/2024. ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: Defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity as to Counts 1 through 4 of the Indictment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4242(b)(3). Defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4243(a). Parties shall file a status report on or before October 21, 2024. A hearing will he held on October 29, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom A901 before Judge Regina M. Rodriguez. Court Reporter: Sarah Mitchell. (kmyha) (Entered: 09/20/2024)”
That was very informative, thanks for writing it up
Highly recommend tracking down the manifesto. He might have been unwell, but there some solid one-liners that made me chuckle.
I checked back in on the docket for this case (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63135875/united-states-v-harris/).
Short version: There is indeed going to be a hearing to determine whether and under what circumstances Harris will be released. It appears that, by joint request of the parties, this hearing has been delayed beyond the typical 40 days after the verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity was reached. It will not occur sooner than November 27, 2024.
Longer Version:
On October 21, 2024 the parties (prosecution and defense) filed a required joint status report, which can be viewed at this link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63135875/105/united-states-v-harris/
This filing clarifies that the judge did indeed order a standard hearing after the finding of not guilty by reason of insanity for a federal crime (see my previous comments on the federal statute) in order to determine whether releasing the defendant would “create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage of property of another due to a present mental disease or defect pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4243.”
At that time of the verdict, the judge ordered an October 29, 2024 hearing date in order to follow the statutory requirement that such a hearing be within forty days of the judgement.
However, the status report states that “The defendant is willing to waive his right to a hearing within 40 days as set out in 18 U.S.C. § 4243(c).” In the status report, the parties jointly request that the judge change the ordered hearing date to a date after November 27, 2024.
The judge issued an order (Docket entry 106) in response the following day, October 22, but the text of the order is not available free online. However, it is likely that the judge issued an order vacating the October 29 hearing date and setting a new hearing date. (If the judge had refused to do so, we would certainly see more activity on the docket, but 106 is the latest entry).
I’ll plan to check in on the docket in another couple weeks to see if there are further updates.