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.

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

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

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

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