State of Connecticut v. the Devil

Re: Insanity Defense/The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do it (2021), The Devil on Trial (2023)

What is an insanity plea and is it a get out of jail free card?  Can someone be acquitted of a crime due to demonic possession?

Sources:

 Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 17(a) (1984).

 Federal Rules of Evidence, 704(b).

General Statutes of Connecticut, § 53a-54a, 53a-13 (2023 Edition).

Durham v. U.S., 214 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1954).

U.S. v. Freeman, 357 F.2d 606 (2nd Cir. 1966).

U.S. v. Freeman, 804 F.2d 1574 (11th Cir. 1986).

State v. Conte, 157 Conn. 209 (Conn. 1968).

State v. Rossier, 175 Conn. 204 (Conn. 1978).

Elizabeth Nevins-Saunders, Not Guilty as Charged: The Myth of Mens Rea for Defendants with Mental Retardation, 45 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1419 (2012).

Phillip J. Resnick, The Andrea Yates Case: Insanity on Trial. 55 Clev. St. L. Rev. 147 (2007).

Marco Margaritoff, “Andrea Yates, The Texas Woman Who Drowned Her Kids to Save Them From the Devil.”  All That’s Interesting (May 21, 2023). https://allthatsinteresting.com/andrea-yates 

“A Crime of Insanity: Insanity on Trial” Frontline.  https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/faqs.html .

“The Insanity Defense Among the States” FindLaw.com, reviewed Jan. 23, 2019.

“Insanity Defense” Wikipedia, accessed Oct. 23, 2023.

Written, Researched, and Recorded by Céleste Young, 2023-2025.
Music: Out On My Skateboard - Mini Vandals

Waitisthatlegal@gmail.com

Transcript

            “Your Honor, my client pleads not guilty by reason of demonic possession.”  These are the words spoken by the defense attorney in the 2021 movie The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It, the 3rd installment in the Conjuring franchise.  I don’t watch horror movies, in fact I didn’t watch this movie I read the script instead, but this movie is actually based on a real world legal case.  I was already considering using it for Halloween episode and then Netflix released the documentary about the real story, The Devil on Trial, so I figured the universe was telling me something.  As the movie and the documentary claim, this was the first (and to my knowledge, only) time that the defense of demonic possession was used in the U.S.  This is still somewhat misleading because although it is true that the defense asserted a not guilty plea on the basis of demonic possession, the use of this defense was not allowed by the court and Arne Johnson instead used a claim of self-defense.  The court struck down the attempt because there is no recognized legal defense for demonic possession, which is largely why it had never been used before, or since.  The movie claims the defense had been used twice before in the UK, and the documentary cites the use of the defense in in 2 arson cases and 1 rape case.  I could not find any evidence that the defense has ever been used in the UK, because it is not a recognized legal defense that exists in the UK either.  The one case that is named by a character in the movie, that of Michael Taylor, is a real case and it involved an alleged case of demonic possession, but the actual acquittal in the case was due to insanity.  The Taylor case happened in 1974 and Arne Johnson was accused of murdering Alan Bono in 1981, so why didn’t Johnson attempt an insanity defense?  Well, first let’s dive into what an insanity defense is and how to prove a defendant is legally insane.

            Murder is the unlawful killing of another person with malice aforethought without justification, excuse, or mitigation.  Justification, excuse, and mitigation are the categories of defenses for murder.  Each category is a different level of culpability.  If the defendant is justified in killing the victim, then there is no criminal culpability.  Mitigating circumstances lower the level of culpability, usually to a lesser form of murder or manslaughter.  And defenses that give a reason for the defendant’s behavior can sometimes excuse the behavior altogether or partially.  The category of excuses for murder includes: infancy, intoxication, and insanity.  Insanity is definitely one of the more notorious defenses out there and gets a lot of attention in popular culture.  However, like a lot of legal concepts that appear in TV and Movies, the attention is not warranted and the portrayal is not always accurate.  A successful defense of insanity can sometimes lead to an acquittal by negating the intent to commit a crime.  This is not always the get out of jail free card that it is often portrayed as in TV and Movies.  Although, it is actually a get out of jail card, there is often very little freedom involved.  Claiming insanity as a defense will usually have the somewhat obvious result of being declared insane, in that the insane person is then committed to a mental health institution or hospital for treatment.  The Insane person is then kept in the institution until they are cured or deemed no longer to be a threat to themselves or others.  For defendants acquitted because of insanity this means they usually spend at least the same amount of time in a psychiatric facility as they would have served in prison.  In the vast majority of cases where there is a successful insanity defense used, the defendant will spend twice the amount of time in a facility as someone serving a normal prison sentence for the same crime will spend behind bars.  Plus there is the added bonus that even once the insane defendant is determined to be fit to return to the real world they are usually subject to ongoing supervision and treatment.

            Despite how often insanity defenses are brought up in popular culture and media, the actual use of insanity as a defense is incredibly low.  Studies analyzing the subject show that of all felony cases brought to court in the U.S. less than 1% raised the defense of insanity and of those only 23% were actually successful.  Of those cases that were successful, 90% involved defendants who had previously been diagnosed with some form of mental illness.  The defense was only raised in about 15% of murder cases.  And when you look at the actual tests used to determine insanity it is pretty clear why the numbers are so low.

            In the U.S. there are four main tests used for insanity: the M’Naghten test, the Model Penal Code (or MPC) test, the irresistible impulse test, and the Durham test.  Which test is used depends on whether it is a State or Federal case, or which State has jurisdiction. Notably, there are 4 states that have no insanity defense: Idaho, Kansas, Montana, and Utah.  Some of those states do allow a defendant to plead guilty but insane, but cannot be acquitted based on insanity.       I will start with oldest test, the M’Naghten Rule which was the result of centuries of evolving legal thought in English Common Law.  Starting as early as the 1500s the English courts grappled with the concept that someone who commits a crime may not always have the right mindset (ie. mens rea) to be considered guilty of the crime.  The biggest issue was more of a moral question than a strictly legal one, which was what to do with a defendant that lacked the mental capacity to understand that their actions were wrong?  This led to a centuries long pursuit of a standard for insanity, recounted by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in the 1966 case, U.S. v. Freeman.  The Freeman analysis begins with the 1582 test of [quote] “If a man or a natural fool, or a lunatic in the time of his lunacy, or a child who apparently has no knowledge of good or evil do kill a man, this is no felonious act for they cannot be said to have any understanding will.” [end quote]  By 1724, the test was whether a defendant [quote] “doth not know what he is doing, no more than a wild beast.”  [unquote]  And, finally, the Courts settled with a rule that is still in use today with the case of Daniel M’Naghten.

            Daniel M’Naghten was a Scottish man who attempted to assassinate the English Prime Minister Robert Peel in 1843.  Instead he shot and killed a civil servant named Edward Drummond who M’Naghten apparently believed was Prime Minister Peel.  The only statement he ever made about the murder was that the Tories (an English political party with Peel as its leader at the time) had compelled him to do it because they persecuted him all the time and destroyed his peace of mind. Interesting side note: if the name M’Naghten (spelled M apostrophe Naghten) seems strange, it’s because it is likely not even a real name.  Apparently, the name was likely signed by Daniel with a small super script “c” which the printers at the time would have represented with an inverted apostrophe.  So his name was really McNaughtan, which I realize means nothing to any of you because this is an audio only medium.  Moving on…

            During his trial, both sides agreed that M’Naghten suffered from delusions of persecution which the defense argued had led to a breakdown of moral sense and a loss of self-control, ultimately causing him to no longer be a reasonable and responsible human being.  The jury found him not guilty on the ground of insanity.  M’Naghten was admitted to Bethlem Hospital with the accompanying note: “Imagines the Tories are his enemies.”  He spent 21 years at Bethlem before he was transferred to the brand new Broadmoor Asylum where he died a year later.  Considering that Bethlem Hospital is better known by its nickname “Bedlam,” who knows if this was a better outcome than being found guilty, which likely would have resulted in his execution.

            The trial and the verdict in M’Naghten’s case resulted in public outcry and Queen Victoria herself demanding answers from the Judge and Parliament.  The response from the Courts to Parliament became the M’Naghten Rules.  [Quote] “To establish a defence on the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved, that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind, as to not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong.” [unquote]  This is still the test used by about half of the states in the U.S., including California, Florida, and Minnesota.

            The federal standard for insanity also used to be the M’Naghten Test, which is the English common law standard, but after John Hinckley Jr.’s acquittal based on insanity Congress passed the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984.  Hinckley attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and he claimed he did it to impress the actress Jodie Foster.  Under the 1984 Act a defendant can only be acquitted if a severe mental disease or defect caused the defendant to be [quote] “unable to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his acts.” [end quote]  So basically the M’Naghten Test with the addition of the word severe.  Because this is the standard that was passed in criticism of Hinckley’s acquittal, severe must mean mental illness beyond an obsession to get an actress’s attention.  The case law would seem to bear this out, in the 1986 case from the 11th Circuit (confusingly also called U.S. v. Freeman), the defendant was suffering from various forms of mental illness, like schizophrenia and depression (same as Hinckley) and claimed he robbed a bank because he was obsessed with raising money for starving children in Ethiopia through the organization, Save the Children.  Depressed that he had not raised a lot of money he decided to rob a bank.  The Court did not question his obvious mental illness, but it did state that the defendant was unable to prove that he did not appreciate the nature and quality of his acts, that his actions of wearing a mask, changing his clothes, running from the cops, etc. all showed he knew his conduct was wrong.  Overall, I think the outcry after Hinckley’s acquittal was maybe a bit overblown considering that despite being acquitted of attempted murder he spent over 30 years in various psychiatric institutions and was only released in 2016 with all restrictions of that release being removed in 2022.

            The next test is used as a supplement to the M’Naghten Test and is used with M’Naghten as the standard in 4 states, including Texas and Virginia.  It is the Irresistible Impulse test, which is that because of mental illness the defendant was unable to control his actions or conform his conduct to the law.  The Texas case of Andrea Yates is illustrative of this test.  In 2001, Andrea Yates drowned all five of her children, she claimed she did it to save them from the devil.  She had been previously diagnosed with postpartum psychosis and schizophrenia.  Her husband had been warned not to leave her alone with the children, but he left her and the kids to go to work.  In her first trial the State charged her with 5 counts of capital murder and the defense argued Andrea could not be executed due to her mental illness.  The Texas Penal code words the insanity defense as [quote] “at the time of the conduct charged, the actor, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, did not know that his conduct was wrong.” [end quote]  The jury found her guilty but refused to recommend a death sentence.  After it was determined that a witness had made a mistake by claiming Andrea had seen an episode of Law & Order where a mother drowns her children (there had been no episode at that time, of course there was one later based on Yates’ case).  Andrea was retried in 2005 and found not guilty by reason of insanity.  The prosecution and defense agreed that Andrea was severely mentally ill at the time of the killings and that she knew her actions were against the law.  However, the defense argued that she did not believe her actions were wrong because she believed that she had to kill them to save their souls, which was more important than following the law. Further, after committing the crime she called 911, fully cooperated and admitted what she had done.  The whole time wholeheartedly believing she had done the right thing for her kids.  After the verdict, Andrea was admitted to a Texas mental health facility and the Texas courts will have jurisdiction over her case for the rest of her life.

            The Model Penal Code Test is sometimes referred to as the “Substantial Capacity Test,” it asks whether the defendant lacks the substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.  This test is used by about 20 states, including New York, Illinois, and Connecticut.  It is also the test used by the State of Wisconsin, where in 2014 2 twelve-year-old girls stabbed their friend (that is being said with very dramatic air quotes) another 12 year old girl 19 times and left her to die in the woods.  The victim managed to crawl to the road and get help and she survived.  The other 2 girls were charged with attempted murder and both were found not guilty by reason of insanity.  The girls claimed to have tried to kill their friend as an offering to the fictional internet character known as Slender Man.  As a nice addition to the absurdity, the two girls were found by the police 5 hours later and 5 miles away from the crime scene with the knife still in their possession.  They had walked to that point and were planning to continue to walk the next 195 miles to Nicolet National Forest, where they believed that Slender Man lived in the cleverly titled “Slender Mansion”.  In order to plead insanity, the girls would need to show that they lacked the substantial capacity to understand the criminal nature of their acts or the capacity to conform their actions to the requirements of the law.  Both girls ultimately pled guilty, Morgan Geyser to attempted first degree homicide and Amanda Weier to second degree homicide, but a jury found them both to be not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.  Neither girl claimed to be innocent of attempting to kill their friend, but like Andrea Yates, seemed to believe that it still had to be done to save themselves and their families.  Weier was sentenced to 25 years to life in a mental facility, but she was released after 7 years.  She will continue to be supervised by the court for the duration of the 25 year sentence which is until she is 37.  Morgan Geyser was diagnosed with schizophrenia and given 40 years to life in a mental facility.  She has not been released and will remain under supervision by the State until she is 53.

            The David Berkowitz case, also known as, The Son of Sam, was also in an MPC jurisdiction, New York State.  Berkowitz initially claimed to have been directed to kill people by his neighbour’s dog who was actually a demon.  Despite a push from his attorney’s to plead insanity, Berkowitz refused and pled guilty instead.  He is still serving a life sentence in New York and has changed his story several times over the decades.

            And finally there is the Durham Test, which gets its name from the 1954 case Durham v. U.S.  The rule is currently used in only one jurisdiction, New Hampshire.  It asks whether the criminal activity was the product of the defendant’s mental illness.  The Court in Durham rejects the use of tests that examine whether the defendant can distinguish between right and wrong or whether their conduct is illegal.  The D.C. Circuit rejected the M’Naghten/Irresistible Impulse test as being contrary to the science of mental health at the time and thought the test should better reflect these changed views on mental illness.  Mainly, that someone can know that an action is wrong in the context of societal norms, but is still acting in the throes of their mental illness.  The criticism of the Durham Test is that it divorces a mentally ill defendant from all criminal responsibility if the jury finds that the actions were the result of said illness.  Say what you will about the problems inherent in a right from wrong test, but it at least separates the people who legitimately need treatment, like Andrea Yates, from the people who know they are suffering from an irrational obsession with saving starving Ethiopian children and know that robbing a bank for this end is illegal and wrong.

            So now let’s get back to the Conjuring.  The Arne Johnson case happened in Brookfield, Connecticut, in 1981.  Johnson was dating Debbie Glatzel, the older sister of David Glatzel.  David was 8 years old when he was allegedly possessed while helping to clean a rental property owned by Debbie and Arne.  The Glatzel family contacted Ed and Lorraine Warren, the eccentric demonologist and psychic at the center of The Conjuring franchise, for help.  The Warren’s assisted in David’s exorcism, during which Arne apparently told the demon to leave David alone and take him instead.  This is pretty much how it plays out in the movie as well.  There were apparently accounts by Debbie and others that Arne had begun to exhibit similar behavior to David and they were concerned he might now be possessed.  It all came to a head on February 16, 1981 when Alan Bono, Debbie’s employer and the couple’s landlord, was stabbed several times by Johnson with a pen knife.  Johnson’s lawyer said it was 4 or 5 serious stab wounds, the movie says 22.  Bono had taken Debbie, Arne, and few others out to lunch at a local bar.  He was apparently quite intoxicated and started a fight with Arne.  This is where the self-defense argument comes in.  While Bono was taken to the hospital where he later died, Arne was found by police 2 miles from the crime scene and claimed he could not remember what happened.

            The Warrens informed police that Johnson was possessed by a demon, and they assisted Johnson’s defense attorney in putting together a demonic possession defense.  The Warrens later wrote a book about the entire incident.  Despite gathering evidence from the Warrens, the priest that performed the exorcism, and several eyewitnesses, Johnson’s attorney was not allowed to bring a defense of not guilty by reason of demonic possession.  The Judge in the case would not allow it because it was not a recognized defense and it was not based on scientific evidence.  The lawyer instead went with a self-defense argument.  The jury found Arne Johnson not guilty of first degree murder, but guilty of first degree manslaughter.  He was sentenced to 10-20 years in prison, but was out in 5 years.  

            The movie does not go into the trial or the legal defenses, the character of Arne is attacked in the jail by the demon/curse and the Warrens tell Debbie to get the prison chaplain to help. There is an entire plot about the possession not being a normal demonic possession but the result of a satanic witch’s curse, or something like that, which is why Arne was seemingly no longer possessed after the murder.  For our purposes none of that has any bearing on the subject of insanity.  However, the fact that in the movie Arne is trying to commit suicide (because he is being attacked) would be good evidence for an insanity defense.

            In the movie the Warrens provide an example of a defense of demonic possession being used in the English case of Michael Taylor.  This is a real case.  Michael Taylor lived in Ossett, which is a town in West Yorkshire, in the UK.  In 1974, he was allegedly possessed by a whole host of demons and was the subject of an exorcism performed by an Anglican Priest with assistance from a Methodist clergyman.  Part way through the exorcism, Michael was allowed to go home to rest before returning to finish exorcising the last demons.  When Michael returned home he brutally murdered his wife and their dog, with his bare hands.  He was found later wandering in the street completely naked.  He was charged with murder and acquitted due to insanity.  He spent two years being treated at Broadmoor Hospital, then another 2 years at another facility before being released.  Of course the biggest difference between Taylor and Johnson’s cases are that Taylor’s case would have been subject to the M’Naghten Rule and Johnson would have been subject to the MPC substantial capacity test.  So while Taylor only had to prove that he was suffering from mental disease or defect which caused him to not know the nature or quality of his actions or that his actions were wrong.  Johnson had to prove that at the time of the killing that due to a mental disease or defect he lacked the substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct, or to control his conduct within the requirements of the law. 

            Where the two cases are similar is that I truly believe in the power of suggestion and religion can supply that suggestion really well.  It seems convenient that it is always the very religious people who end up getting possessed.  Surely the devil and his demons would find it easier to possess people that don’t know how to recite the Lord’s Prayer.  Regardless of someone’s feelings about whether possession is real or not, I would argue it still qualifies as a mental disease or defect and the effect on the defendant’s sanity would be the same, be it a demonic possession or a psychotic break.

            It was actually a little surprising to me that after being denied the demonic possession defense, Johnson’s attorney pivoted to self-defense and not insanity.  Connecticut still had the death penalty in 1981, so the stakes were pretty high seeing as Johnson was charged with first degree murder.  With an insanity defense the death penalty would have been completely taken off the table.  All the same witnesses could have been used to show that Johnson truly believed, or had reason to believe, that he was possessed with a demon and that could have driven him to commit murder.  The only issue would be that Arne had no previous history of any mental illness, or trouble with the law.  This might have been why his lawyer decided to go with self-defense instead.  The studies I mentioned before do show that defendants who are successful with an insanity defense usually have a history of mental illness.

            The burden of proof also would have been in Johnson’s favor because in Connecticut, once the defendant provides substantial evidence of insanity it is up to the State to then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was actually sane and, therefore, responsible for committing the crime.  In the end, it was probably better that Johnson’s lawyer left insanity out of the trial.  Had Johnson been acquitted by reason of insanity he would have needed to receive treatment and he most likely would have been committed to a hospital for longer than the 5 years he spent in prison.  Overall, I think the only reason this is the only case in the U.S. where demonic possession was attempted as a defense is because of the publicity brought to the case by the involvement of the Warrens.

            I will leave you now with a somewhat unrelated quote that I came across during my research from a Supreme Court of Connecticut case about the standard that needed to be used for the insanity defense.  In the case, the Court notes that the doctor, [quote] testified that in his opinion, based on the interviews, the defendant could not control his emotions and used poor judgment.  All this may well be true.  Certainly, the present homicide, like most other homicides, reflected poor judgment on the part of the killer.” [end quote]

Thank You for Listening.  This show is researched, written, and recorded by me, Céleste Young.  None of the legal advice or opinions expressed in this episode are intended as specific or individualized legal advice.  Please like, subscribe, rate, or review this podcast if you enjoyed it.  If you have any questions or comments, please e-mail them to Waitisthatlegal@gmail.com.  You can find the Podcast on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.

Demonic possession will not get you out of jail so make sure to get your exorcism before you commit any crimes.