LIPAROTA

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1985)
  …is required in a prosecution under 7 U. S. C. § 2024(b)(1). The Court of Appeals rejected petitioner’s arguments. 735 F. 2d 1044 (1984). Because this decision conflicted with recent decisions of three other Courts of Appeals,4 we granted certiorari. 469 U. S. 930 (1984). We reverse. * * * * * The controversy between the parties concerns the mental state, if any, that the Government must show in proving that petitioner acted “in any manner not authorized by [the statute] or the regulations.” The Government…
• United States v. Hillsberg, 812 F.2d 328 (7th Cir. 1987)
  …all under the two prongs are not mutually exclusive. A person unable to understand the nature and quality of his acts is likely to be unable to conform his behavior to the law. Cf. United States v. Lyons, 731 F. 2d 243, 249 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 930, 105 S.Ct. 323, 83 L.Ed.2d 260 (1984) (“[T]here is considerable overlap between a psychotic person’s inability to understand and his ability to control his behavior.”). But the “volitional prong” does cover one class of acts that the “cognitive pron…
• United States v. Newman, 849 F.2d 156 (5th Cir. 1988)
  …gents. This Circuit has consistently held that narcotics addiction standing alone without other psychological involvement raises no issue of mental disease or defect. United States v. Lyons, 731 F. 2d 243, 245 (5th Cir.1984) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 930, 105 S.Ct. 323, 83 L.Ed.2d 260 (1984). While the record does not expressly demonstrate that the trial judge followed precisely the routine set out above, it does disclose that refusal to allow the psychologist to testify as the attorney proffered d…