ABSTRACT
The jurors listened to recorded trials based on cases that had been decided previously. They were told at the outset that their deliberations would be recorded. When deciding individually, two thirds of the jurors in the housebreaking trial believed that Martin Graham was not guilty by reason of insanity and one third that he was guilty. The jurors seemed to be acting as if they had been instructed along the lines proposed by the circuit court in the District of Columbia when it said: “while the capacity to distinguish right from wrong is no longer the earmark of legal sanity, the lack of that capacity is one of the earmarks of legal insanity.” When jurors were asked which rule they would request the judge to read to the jury if they were the defendant’s attorney, Durham was favored by more than two to one over M’Naghten.
