Defendant in Face-Biting Attack Challenges Insanity Rules
A defense attorney says the insanity defense's "clear and convincing" level of proof discriminates against the mentally ill because it is a higher burden than for defendants who claim self-defense or duress.
June 14, 2019 at 01:48 PM
4 minute read
|
Attorneys for a Florida man accused of killing a couple and chewing the husband's face attacked the constitutionality of the state's laws governing insanity defenses, arguing it wrongly places the burden of proof on defendants instead of prosecutors.
Austin Harrouff, 22, has said he was fleeing a demon-like figure when he ran to a home and attacked the couple living there, spitting out a piece of flesh when deputies arrived and were finally able to subdue him.
An attorney for Harrouff told Circuit Judge Sherwood Bauer Jr. the law's requirement that defendants prove insanity to a “clear and convincing” level of proof discriminates against the mentally ill because it is a higher burden than for defendants who claim self-defense or duress. Under self-defense, the burden is on prosecutors — they must prove it wasn't. Defendants who claim duress must only prove that it is more likely than not that they acted out of necessity.
Attorney Robert J. Watson said it is also unconstitutional that jurors are told before deliberations they are to presume the defendant is sane. He argued that goes against Harrouff's right to be presumed innocent of the August 2016 killings of John Stevens and Michelle Mischcon Stevens. Bauer questioned Watson extensively on this point, asking him how this is unfair to Harrouff.
Watson replied that to convict Harrouff of first-degree murder, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt he killed the Stevenses with evil intent. He said since Harrouff is not disputing he killed the Stevenses, his only defense is that his mental illness made it impossible for him to form intent. Given that, Watson said, it is unfair that jurors are told to start with the presumption that “the defense is invalid” unless proved otherwise.
“We are not presuming you are insane, which is what we should be doing if we are applying a presumption of innocence,” Watson argued.
Prosecutor Jeffrey Hendriks said there is no discrimination in Florida's insanity law against people with mental illnesses. He said some states don't even allow an insanity defense.
Bauer said he would rule soon. Harrouff's trial is scheduled for the fall.
Harrouff told the “Dr. Phil” television show two months after the attack that he was fleeing a demon he called “Daniel” when he ran to the Stevenses' home. About 45 minutes before the attack, he had stormed out of a restaurant 2 miles away, where he had argued with his father. Earlier, his mother had found him at her home drinking cooking oil mixed with Parmesan cheese; a lawsuit filed by Michelle Stevens' family alleges the concoction was spiked with hallucinogenic mushrooms. Harrouff told host Phil McGraw that he doesn't clearly remember the attack.
According to court documents, deputies arrived to a horrific scene at the Stevenses' home. Michelle Stevens, 53, lay mangled and dead in the garage and Harrouff, then a muscular exercise science major at Florida State University, was attacking and biting her 59-year-old husband in the driveway. Harrouff is alleged to have also wounded a neighbor who tried to save the couple.
One deputy ordered Harrouff off at gunpoint while another used an electric stun gun on him, but he wouldn't let go. Deputies say they didn't shoot Harrouff because they feared hitting John Stevens.
Finally, a deputy with a dog arrived and its bites enabled deputies to subdue Harrouff, who had no previous arrest record. He told deputies, “Help me, I ate something bad” and then admitted it was “humans” as he spit out a piece of flesh, court documents show. He begged deputies to kill him after they pulled him off Stevens, according to the records.
“Shoot me now; I deserve to die,” Harrouff said.
He had to be hospitalized for two months as he ingested an unknown chemical from the Stevens' garage, burning his esophagus.
If convicted, Harrouff faces life in prison without parole. His attorneys want him committed to a mental hospital for life.
Terry Spencer reports for the Associated Press.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMiami Firm Reaches $1.9M Settlement for Protester's Injuries, Pursues Class Action for Others
COVID-19 Death Suit Against Nursing Home Sent to State Court, 11th Circuit Affirms
Trending Stories
- 1Volunteers Unreimbursed Expenses — Tax Incentives For Itemizers
- 2Carter Mario Achieves $225,000 Settlement in Motor Vehicle Case
- 3Legal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
- 4'Further Investment in Power' Will Drive Big Law Business—But What About Clean Energy Projects?
- 5SEC Penalizes Wells Fargo, LPL Financial $900,000 Each for Inaccurate Trading Data
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250