Whether due process permits a jury to reject an affirmative insanity defense supported by clear and convincing medical evidence when the government provides no contrary expert testimony

The Petitioner, Timothy Carver (“Mr. Carver”) was indicted on charges of Production of Child Pornography, Distribution of Child Pornography, and Possession of Child Pornography. The charges were due, in part, to Mr. Carver’s sexual contact with his minor grandson. Dr. Katie Osborn Spirko, a forensic and clinical neuropsychologist, testified that at the time of the offenses, Mr. Carver was suffering from a behavioral variant of frontotemporal dementia, a debilitating, progressive neurodegenerative disease that caused a severe mental defect in Mr. Carver which rendered him completely incapable of understanding what he was doing or that it was wrong. The United States elected not to have Mr. Carver independently evaluated or offer any expert testimony as to Mr. Carver’s mental condition, instead focusing on the outrageous nature of Mr. Carver’s conduct, which was not in dispute. De spite the extensive expert testimony presented by the defense, the jury rejected Mr. Carver’s insanity defense, and he was subsequently sentenced to 460 months of incarceration. The Questions Presented Are: 1. Whether the appellate court erred in affirming the district court’s rejection of Mr. Carver’s insanity defense, where expert medical testimony established that Mr. Carver suffered from a progressive, degenerative brain disease which re ndered him incapable of understanding the wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the offense, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 17? 2. Whether due process permits a jury to reject an affirmative insanity defe nse supported by clear and convincing medical eviden ce, when the government ii provides no contrary expert testimony and relies solely on the graphic and inflammatory nature of the Defendant’s conduct and lay testimony? 3. Whether this Court sh ould reexamine the standards set forth in the Insani ty Defense Reform Act of 1984 in light of modern adva ncements in psychiatric science, the increased prevalence of severe mental illness, and concern that the st atute, as applied, permits juries to reject clear and convincing, unrebutted expert testimony in favor of emotional or prejudicial responses to the defendant’s conduct? iii LIST OF PROCEEDINGS U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit No. 24-5098 United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy Carver, Date of Final Judgment: February 26, 2025 _ U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee No. 2:21-cr-82 United States of America, v. Timothy Carver, USM#58916-509 . Date of Final Judgment: January 30, 2024