United States of America, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Biagio Campisi, Appellant, 445 F.2d 317 (9th Cir. 1971)
Annotate this CaseAppeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Harry Pregerson, Judge.
Michael D. Nasatir (argued), Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellant.
John Newman, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., David R. Nissen, Chief, Crim., Arnold G. Regardie, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before CHAMBERS and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and POWELL, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
The question on appeal is whether the jury was entitled to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was legally responsible for the bank robberies which he committed. Conversely, should a motion for a judgment of acquittal have been granted because of his mental problems, which were certainly serious?
The jury was rightly instructed under Wade v. United States, 426 F.2d 64 (9th Cir. 1970).
We cannot say as a matter of law that the insanity issue should not have gone to the jury.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
