A state appeals court has ruled that a defendant found to be not responsible for crimes due to mental illness—who a judge subsequently found to be dangerous and committed to a secure psychiatric facility—has the right to challenge the judge’s “danger” finding in a rehearing before a jury despite his own lawyer stating in court that he’s “dangerous.”

Calling “retention orders” of any person a “basic liberty issue,” an Appellate Division, First Department panel wrote that “Marco G.”—who in 1998 was found not responsible for multiple sex offenses and attempted assault, due to mental disease or defect—did not waive his jury-rehearing right because his attorney made statements about him in court.

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]