Infamous criminal case analysis: pathology and case law
Choose one infamous criminal case from the supplied list, then cover its background, the psychological issues involved, the life events contributing to the development of pathology and violent behaviour, the associated case law, how the offender was caught, the legal outcome, and your own view of that outcome.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 14, 2026
Choose the case by its case law, not its notoriety
Seven requirements are listed and one of them should drive your choice of case. Case law associated with the case is far easier to satisfy for some names on this list than others. Andrea Yates produced a genuinely significant appellate decision — her first conviction was overturned because an expert gave false testimony, and her retrial produced a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict that is taught as a leading example of the Texas insanity standard. The Elizabeth Smart case reaches competency-to-stand-trial questions. Others on the list are famous without generating much precedent, and you will find yourself describing the trial instead of the law. Pick for the legal substance and the other six sections still write themselves; pick for notoriety and one whole section stays thin no matter how much you read about the crime itself, because the material simply does not exist.
The third requirement — life events that contributed to the development of pathology and violent behaviour — is where a case analysis becomes psychology rather than true crime, and it needs care in two directions. It has to be evidence-based, drawn from trial testimony, forensic evaluations and peer-reviewed literature rather than documentaries and podcasts, which are where most of the readily available material on these cases lives. And it has to avoid retrospective determinism: a childhood adversity that appears in a serious offender's history also appears in the histories of very many people who never offend, so the honest framing is contributory risk rather than cause. Name the specific psychological issues in clinical terms — a diagnosis with its actual criteria, a documented forensic evaluation finding — and keep the final section, your own view of the outcome, clearly separated from the evidence sections that precede it.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Select a case whose associated case law can actually be analysed.
- 02Identify the psychological issues in a criminal case using clinical terminology.
- 03Distinguish contributory developmental risk from causal explanation of violence.
- 04Describe the investigative tools and strategies used to identify an offender.
- 05Separate evidence-based analysis from personal evaluation of a legal outcome.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
You must proofread your paper. But do not strictly rely on your computer’s spell-checker and grammar-checker; failure to do so indicates a lack of effort on your part and you can expect your grade to suffer accordingly. Papers with numerous misspelled words and grammatical mistakes will be penalized. Read over your paper – in silence and then aloud – before handing it in and make corrections as necessary. Often it is advantageous to have a friend proofread your paper for obvious errors. Handwritten corrections are preferable to uncorrected mistakes. Use a standard 10 to 12 point (10 to 12 characters per inch) typeface. Smaller or compressed type and papers with small margins or single-spacing are hard to read. It is better to let your essay run over the recommended number of pages than to try to compress it into fewer pages. Likewise, large type, large margins, large indentations, triple-spacing, increased leading (space between lines), increased kerning (space between letters), and any other such attempts at “padding” to increase the length of a paper are unacceptable, wasteful of trees, and will not fool your professor. The paper must be neatly formatted, double-spaced with a one-inch margin on the top, bottom, and sides of each page. When submitting hard copy, be sure to use white paper and print out using dark ink. If it is hard to read your essay, it will also be hard to follow your argument.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01A description and background of the chosen case.
- 02The psychological issues involved, in clinical terms.
- 03The life events contributing to the development of pathology and violent behaviour.
- 04The case law associated with the case, and how the offender was caught.
- 05The legal outcome and a clearly separated discussion of your own view of it.
Background, psychology, development, law, capture, outcome
Description and background
The facts of the case, established from reliable sources.
Psychological issues involved
The diagnoses or forensic findings at issue, with their criteria.
Development of pathology and violence
Life events documented in the record, framed as contributory risk.
Associated case law
The legal questions the case raised and how courts resolved them.
How the offender was caught
The investigative tools and strategies that led to identification.
Outcome and your view of it
The legal result, then a clearly separated evaluation of whether it was right.
Court records and clinical literature, not documentaries
Recommended databases
- Court opinions and appellate records
- StatPearls via NCBI Bookshelf
- PsycINFO
- National Institute of Justice
- MedlinePlus
Search sequence
- 1.Shortlist cases by whether they produced a reported appellate decision.
- 2.Read the appellate opinion itself rather than reporting about it.
- 3.Read the clinical literature on the diagnoses raised at trial.
- 4.Distinguish what was established in evidence from what was asserted in media.
- 5.Read on the investigative methods used in the era of the case.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Antisocial Personality Disorder
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2024
Diagnostic criteria frequently at issue in these cases, for the clinical section.
- 02
Perinatal Depression
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2024
The clinical context central to the Andrea Yates case, including postpartum psychosis.
- 03
Child Abuse and Neglect
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2024
Evidence on developmental adversity and its outcomes, which is what keeps the third section honest.
- 04
Mental Health
MedlinePlus, National Library of Medicine · 2024
Authoritative framing for describing psychological issues without media distortion.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Choosing a case for its fame when it generated no significant case law.
- Sourcing the psychological analysis from documentaries rather than forensic evidence.
- Treating childhood adversity as a cause of violence rather than a contributory risk.
- Naming a diagnosis without reference to its criteria or to who made it.
- Retelling the crime in detail and thinning out the six analytical requirements.
- Mixing personal opinion into the evidence sections instead of confining it to the last.
Submission checklist
- The case comes from the supplied list, or approval was obtained.
- All seven listed requirements have their own coverage.
- Case law is analysed, not just the trial narrated.
- Psychological claims are sourced to evidence rather than media.
- Developmental factors are framed as contributory.
- Personal view is confined to the final section.
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.