Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Dube (D) was charged with robbing a federally insured bank. D introduced testimony of a psychiatrist and psychologist, both claiming that D was insane at the time of the robbery. These diagnoses were made five months after the robbery. They were based mostly on a narrative history supplied by D. The prosecution did not introduce expert opinion testimony. It instead relied on cross-examination and lay testimony of bank tellers and D's accomplice. D was convicted. He appealed, claiming that the prosecution did not sustain its burden of proving D's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.