UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David John MURDOCH, Defendant-Appellant. (Two Cases)

Opinion by Judge THOMPSON; Concurrence by Judge WILSON.

OVERVIEW

David John Murdoch was indicted on two counts of attempted murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1113 , and two counts of use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e)(1). Murdoch was found not guilty by reason of insanity *474 and was committed to a medical detention facility for an assessment.

After considering two risk assessment reports, the district court determined that Murdoch is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect and, as a result of this mental disease or defect, Murdoch poses a substantial risk of injury to others. Accordingly, the district court ordered Murdoch committed to the custody of the Attorney General.

Murdoch appeals that decision, arguing the district court erred by determining that he is suffering from a present mental disease or defect. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

FACTS

Murdoch, a citizen of Great Britain, traveled to the United States to commit suicide. He was overwhelmed by life “stressors” involving his relationships, work, and money, and felt he was a failure at everything. He obtained a gun and…

concurring:

I agree with the majority in its conclusion that the fact that an insanity acquittee is largely asymptomatic does not mandate release under § 4243. Whether or not symptoms of the disease are manifested does not change the fact that the acquittee “suffers” from a mental disease or defect. I write separately, however, because I do not believe the appellant conceded that his condition could legally be considered a “mental disease or defect.” 1 I conclude that his condition— personality disorder not otherwise specified (NOS) with passive/aggressive and narcissistic tendencies — is a mental disease or defect within the meaning of § 4243. Thus, I concur in the judgment as well.

As stated above, whether a person is suffering from a mental disease or defect is generally a question of fact. Deference is properly afforded to a district court’s weighing of the evidence and determinations of credibility. However, deference cannot be afforded, where — -viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the court’s conclusion — the facts do not fall within the applicable legal standard. Generally, it will be readily apparent whether a mental condition is or is not a mental…

98 F.3d 472 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7664 , 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,593 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David John MURDOCH, Defendant-Appellant. (Two Cases) Nos. 94-10434, 95-10417. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 15, 1996. Decided Oct. 16, 1996. Franny A. Forsman, Federal Public Defender, Las Vegas, NV, for defendant-appellant. Will B. Mattly and Jamon A. Jarvis, Assistant United States Attorneys, Las Vegas, NV, for plaintiff-appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-93-00107-PMP. Before: THOMPSON and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and WILSON, District Judge. * Opinion by Judge THOMPSON; Concurrence by Judge WILSON. DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judge: OVERVIEW 1 David John Murdoch was indicted on two counts of attempted murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1113 , and two counts of use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)(1). Murdoch was found not guilty by reason of insanity and was committed to a medical detention facility for an assessment. 2 After considering two risk…