the change in the burden of proof effected by the amendment in this case. This is illustrated by its analysis of U.S. v. Mest, 789 F.2d 1069 (4th Cir.1986), a case involving an insanity defense to a murder prosecution where the offense was committed pri- or to enactment of the Insanity Defense. Reform Act (“IDRA”), but the trial was conducted thereafter. The Booth TV court reviewed the IDRA’s change in the Federal Rules of Evidence, which was found not to violate the Ex Post Facto Clause, but did not distinguish the change in the burden of proof and the definition of insanity brought about by the IDRA, which the parties agreed were “substantive,” and the court did not apply retroactively. Id. at 1073 n. 3. See also United States v. Lakey, 610 F.Supp. 210, 213-14 (S.D.Tex.1985) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Kowal, 596 F.Supp. 375
holding that revocation of medical license does not violate the ex post facto clause holding that the ex post facto clause  has no application to deportation holding that retroactive application of mvra does not violate the ex post facto clause because restitution is not a criminal punishment holding that retroactive application of ohios residency restriction statute violates the federal ex post facto clause holding retroactive application of idra would violate the ex post facto clause