Frendak v. United States, 408 A.2d 364 (D.C. 1979) is a landmark case in which District of Columbia Court of Appeals decided that a judge could not impose an insanity defense over the defendant's objections.
[4] The court said that a defendant may feel hospital is worse than prison, that the term of incarceration may be longer, that the stigma and legal consequences of a criminal or an insanity defenses are different.
If the defendant appears to be intelligently and voluntarily waiving the insanity defense, the trial court should not deny this.
[6] The Frendak rationale, that a judge may not impose an insanity defense over the objections of the defendant, has been used mostly in federal cases.
Therefore a separate competency to refuse the insanity defense would have to be held that is similar to an evaluation of the defendant's mental state at the time of the offense.