President James Garfield died on September 19, 1881 at 10:35 P. M. Immediately, Charles Guiteau was not going to trial for attempted murder but murder in the first degree, a capital offense. The trial of Charles Guiteau was problematic and controversial from the beginning. It came down to the question: was Charles Guiteau a lunatic or simply a disgruntled office-seeker? Some have claimed he was a madman who snapped when he didn’t get a government appointment. True, he sought ambassadorships and a place in the Republican Party, perhaps as a speaker. Not that he was altruistic and wanted to benefit the nation but because he thought the jobs paid well and were easy. It’s not that he thought he was destined for greatness but by all accounts he was simply lazy, even in childhood, according to family members. When Guiteau was jailed in 1873 for not paying a bill he wrote his father for bail money. His father denied him the money “but said he would pray for Charles to be cured of egotism and self-will, and that spirit that has led you for years to live off from other people’s labors, and live in absolute laziness and good-for-nothingness…” (Clark, 14) He was finally banned from the white House on May 13 and in Guiteau’s mind it was obvious: Secretary of State Blaine was trying to oust all the Stalwarts from office. This disturbed him so much he wrote Garfield on May 16, complaining about the treatment Blaine had given him. It was May 18 that Guiteau came up with the perfect solution. Everything would be better if Garfield were removed. First of all, he would be famous. “I thought just what people would talk and thought what a tremendous excitement it would create.” (Clark, 47) He still hoped to get a government job, all the while plotting to kill Garfield. Finally, on May 23 he wrote his last letter to Garfield, demanding the termination of Blaine who he accused of ruining the G.O.P. Since Garfield wouldn’t get rid of Blaine there was nothing to do but get rid of Garfield. To most of the population, this would seem the rationale of a lunatic.
If one goes by the M’Naghten rule which states if one knows the difference between right and wrong then one is culpable. “…that every man is to presumed to be sane…it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason…as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.” (1) (Goldstein, 45) M’Naghten though, is controversial. It views the mind as being compartmentalized and classifies someone as insane only if “he suffers from serious cognitive or intellectual impairment.” (Goldstein, 46) One problem with that is that few psychotics suffer from major cognitive impairment. If we go by the Durham rules, adopted in 1954 by the United States Court of Appeals, then clearly Guiteau was insane. They state if a defendant “could not be expected to respond properly to threats of sanction; he was not a “fit” object of anger and blame…” (Goldstein, 82) M’Naghten also states that a medical witness cannot give his opinion as to a defendant’s state of mind at the time of the crime, as to whether he could distinguish between right or wrong. That was for a jury to decide. The trial of United States v. Guiteau was the first case to contest this issue.
Guiteau clearly believed once the nation read his reasons and truly understood him he would be released from prison and in fact be made a hero for killing Garfield and thereby saving the G.O.P. and the nation itself. During his trial he compared himself to George Washington and U. S. Grant, a hero and patriot. In his mind he suffered” in bonds as a patriot, because I had the inspiration…to unite a great political party,” and saved the nation from another desolating war. (Rosenberg, 215) He firmly believed the American people were behind him in the “removal” of President Garfield. When he asked for money through the newspapers for his defense checks did come to him. Unfortunately, the checks were worthless and people simply got his autograph.
He stated repeatedly in his defense that 1. The order to kill Garfield came from God, therefore Guiteau was not responsible. 2. That he in fact did not kill the President; it was malpractice that killed him, which was probably true and 3. Garfield died in New Jersey, not in Washington, D.C. where the trial was being held; therefore the court had no jurisdiction. As for the insanity defense, Guiteau did not wish to be seen as insane by the public so while he invoked the insanity defense he also kept contradicting it. In fact, his attorney, George Scoville, said if he didn’t believe Guiteau to be insane he would not defend him at all. (Clark, 117) During the trial Guiteau said “I do not pretend to say that I am insane now any more than you are, but on the 2nd of July and for 30 days prior I was insane. That’s the issue.” (Clark, 118) To Guiteau there was a distinction between being run-of-the-mill insane and legally insane. During a trial in 1871 in which the insanity defense was invoked, Guiteau had written the judge, thanking him for “brushing away” the insanity defense, saving “all that a man would need to secure immunity for murder would be to tear his hair and rave a little, and then kill his man.” (Clark, 118) Yet, in a pre-trial interview, he admitted to a psychiatrist, “I knew from the time I conceived the act if I could establish the fact before a jury that I believed the killing was an inspired act I could not be held responsible before the law. You may add this, that the responsibility lies on the Deity, and not on me, and that, in law, is insanity.” (Clark, 121) As we have seen Guiteau clearly acted with premeditation. If one has the sense to plan an attack, going so far as to pick the type of pistol, isn’t that proof of sanity? If we take premeditation as proof of sanity then John Hinckley, the would-be assassin of President Reagan, would have been found culpable and be in prison. However, if we accept delusions of grandeur as proof then Guiteau is clearly insane. Yet, Charlie Manson is not considered insane and was sent to prison while he clearly had delusions of grandeur, the same as Hinckley. As we can see, insanity is as much a social concept as much as a psychiatric one. If a crime is so heinous and sparks such public outrage a jury is less likely to find a defendant not guilty. Also, as we’ve seen, society’s ideas about mental disease and treatment at the time play a big role in whether an insanity defense will work. In 1962 the court ruled in “McDonald v. United States” that a mental disease includes any abnormal condition of the brain that substantially affects mental or emotional processes and substantially impairs behavior controls. The newest ruling, called the ALI (American Law Institute)Rule enacted in 1955 says “a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease…he lacks …capacity…to appreciate the criminality of his conduct…” (Goldstein, 87) Guiteau’s trial started on November 7, 1881. Finally, on January 26, 1882, the jury returned with the verdict. Guilty as charged.



Works Cited
Clark, James C. Murder of James A. Garfield the president's last days and the trial and execution of his assassin. Jefferson, N.C: McFarland, 1993.
Goldstein, Abraham S. The Insanity Defense. New Haven & London: Yale UP, 1967.
Rosenberg, Charles E. The Trial of the Assassin Guiteau Psychiatry and the Law in the Gilded Age. New York: University Of Chicago P, 1995.