Connection lost
Server error
Jones v. United States Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An insanity acquittee was confined to a mental hospital for longer than the maximum sentence for his crime. The Supreme Court held that his indefinite commitment did not violate due process, as the insanity verdict itself justified confinement until he was no longer mentally ill or dangerous.
Legal Significance: The Court established that insanity acquittees are a special class who, for due process purposes, can be automatically and indefinitely committed based on a less stringent standard of proof than that required for civil commitment.
Jones v. United States Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Petitioner Michael Jones was charged in the District of Columbia with attempted petit larceny, a misdemeanor with a maximum prison sentence of one year. Jones pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). Under D.C. law, a defendant raising this defense had to affirmatively establish their insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. The government did not contest the plea, and the court found Jones NGRI. Pursuant to a D.C. statute, Jones was automatically committed to a public mental hospital. After being confined for more than one year—the maximum period he could have been incarcerated if convicted—Jones filed a motion for his release. He argued that his continued confinement violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. He contended that he should either be released or be afforded a new commitment hearing under the more stringent standards applicable to civil commitments, which require the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that an individual is currently mentally ill and dangerous. The D.C. Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed the trial court’s denial of his motion, upholding the statutory scheme for commitment of insanity acquittees.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Due Process Clause permit the indefinite commitment of a criminal defendant acquitted by reason of insanity, based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, even after the acquittee has been confined for longer than the maximum potential sentence for the underlying offense?
Yes. The Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the Constitution permits the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the Due Process Clause permit the indefinite commitment of a criminal defendant acquitted by reason of insanity, based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, even after the acquittee has been confined for longer than the maximum potential sentence for the underlying offense?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the legal principle that insanity acquittees constitute a distinct Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore e
Legal Rule
When a criminal defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate ve
Legal Analysis
The Court's due process analysis centered on the fundamental differences between insanity Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incidi
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An insanity acquittee may be confined in a mental hospital for
