United States v. Harry Wayne Parks

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• government psychiatrist’s testimony based on incorrect factual assumptions insufficient to support jury verdict in the face of testimony by two defense psychiatrists and five lay witnesses which established a strong case suggesting legal insanity
• insufficient proof to rebut prima facie case of insanity
• insufficient proof to rebut prima facie case of insanity

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).