Whether the Due Process Clause permits the State to continue to confine an insanity acquittee after he has recovered his sanity, as long as he has undesirable personality 'traits'

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner was found not guilty by reason of insanity of the murder and sexual assault of his unfaithful common law wife, and he was committed to a mental institution. That was in 1986. Petitioner’s diagnosis of insanity was abandoned more than 30 years ago, and he has not been involved in any acts of violence since he was hospitalized. Nevertheless, he is still being confined on the basis of the old insanity verdicts. He is currently diagnosed with narcissistic and antisocial “traits” that do meet the criteria for any specific personality disorder. Those traits include arrogance, exaggerating his achievements and talents, uncooperativeness, demanding excessive attention, and being deceitful about his sexual history. Petitioner applied to the court for release into a conditional release program that provides outpatient supervision and treatment in the community. However, a California statute, Penal Code § 1026.2(e), says that for an insanity acquittee to be released, he has a burden to prove by a preponderance that he “will not be a danger to the health and safety of others, due to mental defect, disease, or disorder, while under supervision and treatment in the community.” Petitioner’s application was denied. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, stating there was “nothing unusual about placing the burden of proof on the defendant.” The first question presented is whether the Due Process Clause permits the State to continue to confine an insanity acquittee after he has recovered his sanity, as long as he has undesirable personality “traits.” The second question is whether the Due Process Clause permits the State to place the burden of proof an the insanity acquittee who is no longer insane to prove he is entitled to release.