MR. EDWARD HYDE TIMELINE AND SUMMARY
*This is based on Dr. Jekyll’s final account. At some unknown point in time, Mr. Hyde comes to life when Dr. Jekyll drinks a special potion. For a time, Mr. Hyde comes to life whenever Dr. Jekyll doesn’t feel like being respectable. Mr. Hyde participates in "undignified" pleasures that soon turned to the "monstrous." Then he tramples the child, witnessed by Mr. Enfield. He writes a check in Dr. Jekyll’s name, then opens a bank account for himself – the signature is merely Dr. Jekyll’s handwriting, sloped backwards. Two months before the murder of Sir Danvers, Dr. Jekyll goes to bed and then awakes as Mr. Hyde. Dr. Jekyll notes that Mr. Hyde’s body has been growing larger, as if from "a more generous tide of blood." He is also stronger-willed. For two months, Dr. Jekyll refrains from drinking the potion, and Mr. Hyde remains hidden. In a moment of "moral weakness," Dr. Jekyll drinks the potion and Mr. Hyde emerges stronger than ever. The beast is out of the cage. When a passerby stops him, Mr. Hyde beats the man to death. Dr. Jekyll resolves to lay Mr. Hyde to rest forever, but commits some sin that "tips the balance of his soul" towards evil. Mr. Hyde takes control of Dr. Jekyll’s body one day at Regent’s Park. Away from his potions and a wanted man for murder, Mr. Hyde runs into a hotel and stays there after penning messages to Dr. Jekyll’s friend (Dr. Lanyon) and Dr. Jekyll’s butler, delivering a complex series of instructions. Mr. Hyde goes to Dr. Lanyon’s house to get the potion. Warning Dr. Lanyon that he is about to see something extraordinary, Mr. Hyde drinks the potion and transforms into Dr. Jekyll. The next morning, Dr. Jekyll is relieved and walking in his courtyard, on his way to the laboratory, when he again transforms into Mr. Hyde. It takes a double dose to recall Dr. Jekyll. Six hours later, Mr. Hyde again takes over. From that point on, Mr. Hyde is the dominant personality, and Dr. Jekyll struggles helplessly to assert himself. At this point Dr. Jekyll realizes that Mr. Hyde is afraid of death, and that only fear of the gallows allows Dr. Jekyll to resume his identity. However, because Dr. Jekyll really dislikes Mr. Hyde at this point, Mr. Hyde begins to really hate Dr. Jekyll. Mr. Hyde plays lots of tricks on Dr. Jekyll, like defacing his favorite books and burning his letters. But since Mr. Hyde is afraid to die, he fears that Dr. Jekyll will simply commit suicide. Because of this, Dr. Jekyll pities Mr. Hyde. Because Dr. Jekyll runs out of potion, Mr. Hyde is given full rein. Mr. Hyde eventually kills himself, and is found (dead) by Mr. Utterson and Poole.
Quotations: "a by-street in a busy quarter of London.... Two doors from one corner on the left hand going east ... two storeys high...." "the buildings are so packed together about the court, that it's hard to say where one ends and another begins." "I saw Mr. Hyde go in by the old dissecting-room." "If each, I told myself, could be housed in separate identities, life would be relieved of all that was unbearable...." "for any drug that so potently controlled and shook the very fortress of identity...." "He is not easy to describe. There is something wrong with his appearance, something displeasing, something down-right detestable." "The two hands are in many points identical: only differently sloped." "Utterson was amazed to find it a copy of a pious work, for which Jekyll had several times expressed a great esteem, annotated, in his own hand, with startling blasphemies." "Here and there a brief remark was appended to a date, usually no more than a single word: 'double' occurring perhaps six times...." "'Compose yourself,' said I. He turned a dreadful smile to me...." "Though so profound a double-dealer, I was in no sense a hypocrite." "Hence, although I had now two characters as well as two appearances, one was wholly evil and the other was still the old Henry Jekyll, that incongruous compound of whose reformation and improvement I had already learned to despair." "My devil had been long caged, he came out roaring." "Jekyll had more than a father's interest; Hyde had more than a son's indifference." "Hence the ape-like tricks that he would play me, scrawling in my own hand blasphemies on the pages of my books, burning the letters and destroying the portrait of my father...."
Insanity Defense
37 20.5K
Download article as a PDF
A criminal defendant who is found to have been legally insane when he or she committed a crime may be found not guilty by reason of insanity. In some cases, the defendant may be found guilty but sentenced to a less severe punishment due to a mental impairment. In states that allow the insanity defense, defendants must prove to the court that they did not understand what they were doing; failed to know right from wrong; acted on an uncontrollable impulse or some variety of these factors.
Below you will find basic information and legal issues related to the insanity defense, plus links to FindLaw's various articles about legal insanity. See Defending Yourself Against a Criminal Charge for related information. Legal Insanity: Background
The first known recognition of insanity as a defense to criminal charges was recorded in a 1581 English legal treatise stating that, "If a madman or a natural fool, or a lunatic in the time of his lunacy" kills someone, they cannot be held accountable. British courts came up with the "wild beast" test in the 18th Century, in which defendants were not to be convicted if they understood the crime no better than "an infant, a brute, or a wild beast."
Besides the fact that courts no longer use the terms "lunatic" or "wild beast," current laws allowing for the insanity defense follow a similar logic. The legal basis for insanity was codified into British law in the mid 19th Century with the M'Naughten Rule, which is used in a majority of U.S. states and other jurisdictions around the world today.
See Current Application of the Insanity Defense and Status of the Insanity Defense to learn more. How Courts Test for Legal Insanity
Depending on the jurisdiction, courts use one or a combination of the following tests for legal insanity:
The "M'Naghten Rule" - Defendant either did not understand what he or she did, or failed to distinguish right from wrong, because of a "disease of mind." The "Irresistible Impulse" Test - As a result of a mental disease, defendant was unable to control his impulses, which led to a criminal act. The "Durham Rule" - Regardless of clinical diagnosis, defendant's "mental defect" resulted in a criminal act. The "Model Penal Code" Test for Legal Insanity - Because of a diagnosed mental defect, defendant either failed to understand the criminality of his acts, or was unable to act within the confines of the law. The Insanity Defense: State Laws
A few states do not allow the insanity defense against criminal charges, including Idaho, Kansas, Montana, and Utah. All four of these states, with the exception of Kansas, allow "guilty but insane" verdicts, which often provide for institutionalization in lieu of prison. Most states that recognize legal insanity use either the M'Naghten Rule (sometimes in combination with the Irrestistible Impulse Test) or the Model Penal Code. Only New Hampshire uses the Durham standard.
See The Insanity Defense Among the States for a complete list. - See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/insanity-defense.html#sthash.ngpCl6YU.dpuf
Famous Scots - Deacon William Brodie (? - 1788) William Brodie's father was a respected cabinetmaker in Edinburgh's Lawnmarket and became a member of the Town Council. But William enjoyed the life of a playboy and although he also became a skilled wood-worker, he spent much of his time gambling (reputedly with loaded dice). Nevertheless, he was able to charm his family and the wealthy customers. On the night of his father's death he was gambling as usual. Having inherited the family business, Brodie led a double life, first as a qualified tradesman and pillar of the community but also with a dissolute side, gambling heavily. His expenses were increased by his support to his mistresses and five illegitimate children. He also socialised with the gentry of Edinburgh and is known to have met Robert Burns and the painter Sir Henry Raeburn. Inevitably running short of money, he began to take wax impressions of the keys to houses in which he was working legitimately as a wood- worker. He would then return at night and rob the houses of the items he had identified during the day. He teamed up with an English locksmith, George Smith and together they became very "successful" and daring. They even stole the silver mace from the university. Two more partners in crime were added to the gang and this was to be Brodie's undoing. During a bungled raid on the Excise Office, Brodie fell asleep during the robbery and the gang only just managed to escape. One of the gang decided to accept the large reward offered by the town council. But Brodie heard of the arrest of his accomplices and fled to Amsterdam. He was found later (on the point of sailing to America) and was extradited to stand trial. Found guilty, he was sentenced to be hanged. It is here that Brodie's notoriety was to increase for it was said that he was provided with a harness to cheat the hangman and that he was spirited away afterwards. Rumours circulated later that he had been seen in Paris. One of the many alleyways in Edinburgh's Royal Mile has been named after him and the double life of Deacon Brodie as the respectable tradesman and daring thief is said to have been the inspiration for Robert Louis Stevenson's story of "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde". Return to the Index of Famous Scots (http://www.rampantscotland.com/famous/blfamdeacon.htm)
Sheppard v. Maxwell From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sheppard v. Maxwell
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 28, 1966 Decided June 6, 1966
Full case name Sheppard v. Maxwell
Citations 384 U.S. 333 (more)
86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 1 Med.L.Rptr. 1220.
Prior history Appeal from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
Holding
Sheppard did not receive a fair trial due to media interference.
Court membership
Chief Justice Earl Warren Associate Justices Hugo Black · William O. Douglas Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II William J. Brennan, Jr. · Potter Stewart Byron White · Arthur Goldberg
Case opinions
Majority Clark, joined by Goldberg, Brennan, White, Warren, Harlan, Stewart, Douglas
Dissent Black
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I, U.S. Const. amend. VI
Wikisource has original text related to this article: Sheppard v. Maxwell
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966), was a United States Supreme Court case that examined the rights of freedom of the press as outlined in the 1st Amendment when weighed against a defendant's right to a fair trial as required by the 6th Amendment. In particular, the court sought to determine whether or not the defendant was denied fair trial for the second-degree murder of his wife, of which he was convicted, because of the trial judge's failure to protect Sheppard sufficiently from the massive, pervasive, and prejudicial publicity that attended his prosecution.
Contents [hide]
1 Background 2 Decision of the Court 3 See also 4 External links
Background[edit]
After suffering a trial court conviction of second-degree murder for the bludgeoning death of his pregnant wife, Sam Sheppard challenged the verdict as the product of an unfair trial. Sheppard, who maintained his innocence of the crime, alleged that the trial judge failed to protect him from the massive, widespread, and prejudicial publicity that attended his prosecution. On appeal from an Ohio district court ruling supporting his claim, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision. When Sheppard appealed again, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Decision of the Court[edit]
In an 8-1 decision the Court found that Sheppard did not receive a fair trial. Noting that although freedom of expression should be given great latitude, the Court held that it must not be so broad as to divert the trial away from its primary purpose: adjudicating both criminal and civil matters in an objective, calm, and solemn courtroom setting. The blatant and hostile trial coverage by Cleveland's radio and print media, and the physical arrangement of the courtroom itself - which facilitated collaboration between the prosecution and present media - all combined to so inflame the jury peoples' minds against Sheppard as to deny him a fair trial. The Court concluded that the trial judge should have either postponed the proceedings or transferred them to a different venue. In writing for the majority Justice Clark stated: “While we cannot say that Sheppard was denied due process by the judge’s refusal to take precautions against the influence of pretrial publicity alone, the court’s later rulings must be considered against the setting in which the trial held. In light of this background, we believe that the arrangements made by the judge with the news media caused Sheppard to be deprived of that ‘Judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled.” Justice Clark continued to cite the shortcomings of the Court in their weak efforts to control the press, and audience. The amount of media coverage this case received was in high volume and as Justice Black says, “The carnival atmosphere at trial could easily have been avoided since the courtroom and courthouse premises are subject to the control of the court."
Potential Witnesses/Testimony
Dr. Henry Jekyll - A respected doctor and friend of both Lanyon, a fellow physician, and Utterson, a lawyer. Jekyll is a seemingly prosperous man, well established in the community, and known for his decency and charitable works. Since his youth, however, he has secretly engaged in unspecified dissolute and corrupt behavior. Jekyll finds this dark side a burden and undertakes experiments intended to separate his good and evil selves from one another. Through these experiments, he brings Mr. Hyde into being, finding a way to transform himself in such a way that he fully becomes his darker half.
Mr. Edward Hyde - A strange, repugnant man who looks faintly pre-human. Hyde is violent and cruel, and everyone who sees him describes him as ugly and deformed—yet no one can say exactly why. Language itself seems to fail around Hyde: he is not a creature who belongs to the rational world, the world of conscious articulation or logical grammar. Hyde is Jekyll’s dark side, released from the bonds of conscience and loosed into the world by a mysterious potion.
Mr. Gabriel John Utterson - A prominent and upstanding lawyer, well respected in the London community. Utterson is reserved, dignified, and perhaps even lacking somewhat in imagination, but he does seem to possess a furtive curiosity about the more sordid side of life. His rationalism, however, makes him ill equipped to deal with the supernatural nature of the Jekyll-Hyde connection. While not a man of science, Utterson resembles his friend Dr. Lanyon—and perhaps Victorian society at large—in his devotion to reasonable explanations and his denial of the supernatural. Read an in-depth analysis of Mr. Gabriel John Utterson. Dr. Hastie Lanyon - A reputable London doctor and, along with Utterson, formerly one of Jekyll’s closest friends. As an embodiment of rationalism, materialism, and skepticism, Lanyon serves a foil (a character whose attitudes or emotions contrast with, and thereby illuminate, those of another character) for Jekyll, who embraces mysticism. His death represents the more general victory of supernaturalism over materialism in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Read an in-depth analysis of Dr. Hastie Lanyon.
Mr. Poole - Jekyll’s butler. Mr. Poole is a loyal servant, having worked for the doctor for twenty years, and his concern for his master eventually drives him to seek Utterson’s help when he becomes convinced that something has happened to Jekyll.
Mr. Enfield - A distant cousin and lifelong friend of Mr. Utterson. Like Utterson, Enfield is reserved, formal, and scornful of gossip; indeed, the two men often walk together for long stretches without saying a word to one another.
Mr. Guest - Utterson’s clerk and confidant. Guest is also an expert in handwriting. His skill proves particularly useful when Utterson wants him to examine a bit of Hyde’s handwriting. Guest notices that Hyde’s script is the same as Jekyll’s, but slanted the other way.
Sir Danvers Carew - A well-liked old nobleman, a member of Parliament, and a client of Utterson.
(sparknotes.com)
Admissible evidence From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Admissible evidence, in a court of law, is any testimonial, documentary, or tangible evidence that may be introduced to a factfinder—usually a judge or jury—to establish or to bolster a point put forth by a party to the proceeding. For evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant, without being unfairly prejudicial, and it must have some indicia of reliability. The general rule in evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible and all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible.
Criteria[edit] Relevance[edit] For evidence to be admissible, it must tend to prove or disprove some fact at issue in the proceeding. However, if the utility of this evidence is outweighed by its tendency to cause the fact finder to disapprove of the party it is introduced against for some unrelated reason, it is not admissible. Furthermore, certain public-policy considerations bar the admission of otherwise relevant evidence. Reliability[edit] For evidence to be admissible enough to be admitted, the party proffering the evidence must be able to show that the source if the evidence makes it so. If evidence is in the form of witness testimony, the party that introduces the evidence must lay the groundwork for the witness's credibility and knowledge if he attests to. Hearsay is generally barred for its lack of reliability. If the evidence is documentary, the party proffering the evidence must be able to show that it is authentic, and must be able to demonstrate the chain of custody from the original author to the present holder. The trial judge performs a "gatekeeping" role in excluding unreliable testimony. The United States Supreme Court first addressed the reliability requirement for experts in the landmark case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The Court laid out four non-exclusive factors that trial courts may consider when evaluating scientific expert reliability: (1) whether scientific evidence has been tested and the methodology with which it has been tested; (2) whether the evidence has been subjected to peer review or publication; (3) whether a potential rate of error is known; and (4) whether the evidence is generally accepted in the scientific community. Id. at 592-94. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichaellater extended the Daubert analysis to include all expert testimony. 526 U.S. 137 (1999).It bears an effect on the verdict of the court.
This legal term article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.