Quote:
Originally Posted by craigepo
If my reading is correct, the defendant is relying on a defense of "not guilty by reason of insanity". A quick rundown
Generally, there are two mental defenses in a criminal case: (1) insufficient mental competence to assist in one's own defense (not competent to proceed); and (2) not guilty by reason of insanity.
As to number 1, most states have a hearing to determine if the person is competent to proceed. If not, he will be shipped to a mental institution, to see if he can be treated to a point where the case can continue. If not, he will be stuck in jail for a long time.
As to NGRI cases, the defense is that the defendant was unable to understand the difference between right and wrong at the time of the alleged crime. If the state and defense don't agree, the matter will be submitted to a jury. At trial, there will be evidence of the crime, as well as a "battle of the experts", wherein both sides will hire psych docs to try to persuade the jury that the defendant was/was not able to differentiate between right and wrong at the time of the crime.
This makes for a pretty messy, long trial. They happen often, but both attorneys had better bring their "A" game. Murder trials get dissected by appeals courts with a fine-toothed comb.
|
In Texas, and maybe in most states, the defendant is presumed to be sane and must prove that he was "not guilty by reason of insanity". Going to be hard to prove considering that he shot CK 5 times and killed Clifton also, not to mention taking the truck, running from the police, and other acts. He knew he'd done wrong.
disclaimer:
I am not an attorney, but I did sleep in my own bed last night.