1. Whether the appellate court erred in affirming the district court's rejection of Mr. Carver's insanity defense, where expert medical testimony established that Mr. Carver suffered from a progressive, degenerative brain disease which rendered him incapable of understanding the wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the offense, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 17?

2. Whether due process permits a jury to reject an affirmative insanity defense supported by clear and convincing medical evidence, when the government provides no contrary expert testimony and relies solely on the graphic and inflammatory nature of the Defendant's conduct and lay testimony?

3. Whether this Court should reexamine the standards set forth in the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 in light of modern advancements in psychiatric science, the increased prevalence of severe mental illness, and concern that the statute, as applied, permits juries to reject clear and convincing, unrebutted expert testimony in favor of emotional or prejudicial responses to the defendant's conduct?

Whether due process permits a jury to reject an affirmative insanity defense supported by clear and convincing medical evidence when the government provides no contrary expert testimony