“…Perhaps in response to the Hinckley acquittal, the decade of the 1980s witnessed a sharp increase in research on the insanity defense. Recent investigations have examined the operation of the insanity defense in diverse jurisdictions, including Colorado (Pasewark, Jeffrey, & Bieber, 1987), Connecticut (Zonana, Wells, Getz, & Buchanan, 1990;Zonana, Bartel, Wells, Buchanan, & Getz, 1990), Florida (Boehnert, 1987;Heilbrun, Griffin-Heilbrun, & Griffin, 1 988), Hawaii (Bogenberger, Pasewark, Gudeman, & Bieber, 1987), Illinois (Wettstein & Mulvey, 1 988), Maryland (Spodak, Silver, &Wright, 1984;Tellefsen, Cohen, & Silver, 1990), Oregon (Rogers, Bloom, & Manson, 1984;Rogers & Bloom, 1985), and Virginia (Petrella & Six, 1989). Despite this surge in research, there is a continuing need for evidence on a variety of issues, including the frequency of use and success of the insanity defense (e.g., see McGinley , characteristics of defendants who use it, and, in particular, later outcomes of defendants acquitted by reason of insanity (see Pasewark, 1986, andSteadman, 1985, for reviews of the literature).…”