Define: People V. William Freeman (1847)

The court case People v. William Freeman (1847) involved the accusation of William Freeman for the murder of four individuals. Freeman’s defence attorney claimed that his actions were not his responsibility due to his mental illness. However, the jury rejected this argument and declared Freeman guilty. Subsequently, a higher court ruled that defendants can still argue insanity at the time of the crime, even if they are deemed competent to stand trial. Freeman was granted a new trial, but unfortunately, he passed away before it could take place.

The landmark case of People v. William Freeman (1847) marked a significant moment in the United States legal system as it was the first instance where a defendant utilised an insanity defence. The case was heard and decided by the New York Supreme Court. William Freeman, a Black and Indigenous man, had been convicted of horse theft and sentenced to five years of prison with hard labor. During his imprisonment, Freeman frequently refused to work and maintained his innocence. As a result, he endured beatings from the prison guards, one of which caused a severe brain injury leading to mental confusion and deafness. Six months after his release from Auburn Prison, Freeman was accused of murdering four members of the Van Nest family in Cayuga County.

In defence of Freeman, William H. Seward took on the case, arguing that Freeman suffered from a mental illness and should not be held accountable for his actions. Seward presented witnesses who testified about Freeman’s behaviour before and after his injuries, as well as medical experts who attested to his insanity. Despite these efforts, the jury deemed Freeman sane and competent for the trial, allowing the case to proceed. However, the judge refused to admit the medical expert testimony proclaiming Freeman’s insanity. Ultimately, the jury found Freeman guilty of the murders, resulting in a death sentence.

Following the trial, Seward continued to advocate for Freeman and filed an appeal, contending that the trial court should have allowed the presentation of medical testimony to the jury. The appellate court overturned the trial court’s decision, establishing that even if a defendant is deemed competent to stand trial, they can still introduce evidence during the trial to support an insanity defence. Although Freeman was granted a new trial, he passed away shortly after the appellate court’s ruling.

This site contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. Persuing this glossary does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

This glossary post was last updated: 17th April 2024.