What Is "Devil Made Me Do It" case

Content on WhatAnswers is provided "as is" for informational purposes. While we strive for accuracy, we make no guarantees. Content is AI-assisted and should not be used as professional advice.

Last updated: April 10, 2026

Quick Answer: The 'Devil Made Me Do It' case refers to the 1981 trial of Arne Cheyenne Johnson, who was convicted of murdering his landlord Alan Bono in Connecticut. Johnson's defense claimed he was demonically possessed during the crime, marking the first known time a U.S. court considered demonic possession as a legal argument. Johnson was ultimately convicted of first-degree manslaughter and served five years of his 10-20 year sentence.

Key Facts

November 24, 1981: Arne Cheyenne Johnson convicted of first-degree manslaughter for stabbing landlord Alan Bono four times in Brookfield, Connecticut
First known U.S. criminal trial where demonic possession was presented as a defense argument for denying personal responsibility
12-year-old David Glatzel, brother of Johnson's fiancée, was allegedly possessed; paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren investigated the claims
Judge Robert Callahan rejected the demonic possession defense on October 28, 1981, preventing the defense from being formally presented to a jury
Johnson served only 5 years of his 10-20 year sentence, with his early release likely influenced by his exemplary behavior in prison

Overview

The trial of Arne Cheyenne Johnson stands as a watershed moment in American criminal justice history. On February 16, 1981, in Brookfield, Connecticut, Johnson stabbed his landlord Alan Bono four times in the chest during an altercation. What made this case extraordinary was not the crime itself, but the defense strategy: Johnson's attorney claimed that his client was demonically possessed at the time of the killing and therefore not responsible for his actions.

The case gained international attention and became the first known instance in United States legal history where demonic possession was presented as a criminal defense. The trial, which took place in Danbury Superior Court beginning on October 28, 1981, involved testimony from paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren, who claimed to have investigated the alleged possession of David Glatzel, Johnson's 12-year-old future brother-in-law. Despite the unusual nature of the defense, the court ultimately rejected the demonic possession argument, and Johnson was convicted of first-degree manslaughter on November 24, 1981.

How It Works

The demonic possession defense in the Johnson case operated on a straightforward legal principle: if Johnson was genuinely possessed by a demon, he lacked the mental capacity and free will to commit murder, and therefore could not be held criminally responsible. The defense presented several key arguments:

The Possession Claim: Johnson's defense team argued that he had become demonically possessed through contact with David Glatzel, who was supposedly inhabited by a malevolent spirit that caused violent behavior and loss of consciousness.
Lack of Mens Rea: The defense contended that Johnson lacked the guilty mind (mens rea) required to convict someone of murder because he was not in conscious control of his actions during the killing.
Paranormal Investigation Evidence: Ed and Lorraine Warren, renowned paranormal investigators and demonologists, were prepared to testify about their investigations into David Glatzel's alleged possession and their theories about demonic transference.
Expert Testimony Strategy: The defense planned to use expert witnesses to support claims of supernatural possession, though the judge prevented this testimony from reaching the jury.
Historical and Religious Precedent: The defense attempted to ground its argument in religious traditions and historical cases where possession had been claimed as a mitigating factor.

Key Comparisons

Defense Type	Legal Basis	Johnson Case Application
Insanity Defense	Defendant unable to understand nature of act or distinguish right from wrong	Johnson claimed lack of consciousness and control, but judge prevented formal insanity plea
Demonic Possession	Supernatural entity controlling defendant's actions and will	First and only major U.S. case attempting this strategy; rejected by judge
Diminished Capacity	Defendant's mental condition reduced criminal responsibility	Similar goal to possession defense but grounded in psychology rather than supernatural claims
Automatism	Defendant acting without conscious control due to mental condition	Overlaps with possession theory; both argue for unconscious action

Why It Matters

Legal Precedent: The case established that U.S. courts would not recognize demonic possession as a legitimate criminal defense, setting a firm boundary between supernatural claims and legal responsibility.
Religious vs. Scientific Authority: The trial highlighted the tension between religious worldviews and scientific jurisprudence in modern courtrooms, ultimately favoring the latter approach.
Media and Cultural Impact: The case inspired widespread public interest, eventually becoming the basis for the horror film 'The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It' (2021) and a Netflix documentary series, introducing millions to the case decades later.
Psychiatric Standards: While rejecting supernatural claims, the case reinforced the importance of psychiatric evaluation in determining criminal responsibility and competency.

The Johnson case remains culturally significant as a boundary-marker in legal history. It demonstrates how courts balance respect for diverse belief systems against the need for objective, evidence-based standards in determining criminal responsibility. Although Johnson's demonic possession defense failed in court, his case continues to fascinate legal scholars, paranormal enthusiasts, and the general public. Johnson was released after serving five years of his sentence, reflecting both the judge's assessment of his actual responsibility and the recognition that his youth and prison conduct warranted leniency. The case serves as a cautionary tale about extraordinary legal defenses and the continued reliance on rationalist frameworks in criminal justice systems.