As I wrote earlier, this is a tough defense to be successful.  James Holmes is essentially saying that he did the act, but his mental state was such that he couldn’t understand what he was doing and that it was illegal.

Within this week, his lawyers are now saying that he will plead guilty to second degree murder instead of what he’s charged with—first degree murder.  The difference between the two is premeditation.  Second degree murder is usually defined as the unlawful taking of a life by intentionally doing it.  First degree murder is intentional but also carries the requirement that the act is premeditated—something that appears to be pretty obvious when James Holmes prepared for the slaughter and heavily armed himself.

The biggest aspect for Mr. Holmes is the death penalty.  Apparently, in Colorado, people convicted of first degree murder are subject to the death penalty; second degree murder is not.

Here’s my problem with this:  if Mr. Holmes was so mentally ill as to not be able to comprehend that his actions were illegal, how can he now plead guilty to those acts?  If he pleads guilty, he has to say that he knew what he was doing and knew that it was illegal.  I don’t know if his lawyers are crazy or Mr. Holmes is crazy.  It’s quite unusual to try to assert both defenses.

Has someone pleaded guilty to avoid the death penalty before?  It’s happened often.  One of the most celebrated cases occurred in Minnesota in the 1800’s.  The outlaw Jesse James and his gang robbed a bank in the small town of Northfield, Minnesota.  They got the money but as they were coming out of the bank, the town had armed themselves and shot-up the gang pretty badly.  Jesse James and his brother Frank got away.  Their sidekicks, the Younger brothers, weren’t so lucky.  Cole Younger was captured and charged with first degree murder for killing the teller inside the bank during the robbery.  He pleaded guilty to second degree murder to avoid the death penalty (then in existence in Minnesota.  It’s since been abolished)  He lived out the rest of his sentence and was finally released in the 20th Century.

The post James Holmes–Part III appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

Interestingly, most states still use this definition of insanity. . . “a person who is so diseased or defective in mind at the time of the commission of the act as to be incapable of distinguishing right from wrong with respect to that act is not accountable.”  It’s known as the M’naghten Rule.

If the trier of fact (a judge or a jury) decides that a defendant is not guilty be reason of insanity, it acknowledges that the person, in fact, committed the crime but is not to be held accountable.

Does this mean the defendant will “get off on a technicality?”  Much of the daily media lead people to believe the defendant would walk out of the courtroom, free and able to commit more heinous crimes.

Not true.

I don’t practice law in Colorado, so I can’t analyze accurately their procedure in insanity defenses, but in Minnesota there is a definite procedure for this.  I suspect most other states have similar rules.  If a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity, the case moves into a second phase.  The accused would be moved to Probate Court (or sometimes called mental health court).  The same psychiatrists that testified for or against the defendant in the criminal trial may also testify again in the probate court.  Now, the focus of their testimony wouldn’t be the mental status of the defendant, but rather, what should be done with the individual?  What are the diagnosis and what kinds of treatments may be possible.

The probate court would proceed with a commitment process: where and what should be done with the obviously dangerous defendant?

In Minnesota, he would probably be committed to a secure mental institution for an indeterminate period of time.  Unlike a prison term that always carries a maximum confinement aspect to it, a commitment to an institution has no potential end.  Theoretically, the person could remain there for life.

Sounds like a good long-term result, huh?

For the majority of cases, it works well.  But here’s a potential problem:  within state budget limits, there are only so many beds at these facilities.  Once they are full, if a new “mass murderer” is committed to the institution, the team of doctors and psychiatrists must make a decision on which patient is “well enough” to be released back into the community.  What if a person like James Holmes, after some years of therapy, is determined to be “cured”?  And he’s released early.

This doesn’t happen automatically and is subject to judicial review with opposing professionals.  But what if. . . ?

The post Is James Holmes Crazy in Colorado? Part II appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

The prosecutors have charged Holmes with 166 counts of murder, attempted murder, and other charges.  He was caught there and it seems pretty obvious that he’s guilty. . . right?  The prosecution is going for the death penalty as they try to convict him.

However, Holmes’ lawyers have entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.

From a legal standpoint, what does this mean?  Does it mean he denies doing the acts?  Killing so many people and injuring others?  A plea of not guilty by reason of insanity doesn’t actually answer the question of whether he admits the acts or not.  The definition of insanity in Colorado is:

. . . a person who is so diseased or defective in mind at the time of the commission of the act as to be incapable of distinguishing right from wrong with respect to that act is not accountable.

This definition comes, in part, from something called the M’naghten Rule.  In 1843, Daniel M’naghten attempted to kill the British prime minister.  He missed and hit the wrong person.  At the time of his trial, his lawyers asserted a mental illness defense and the British courts fashioned what came to be called the “M’naghten Rule.”  Most states in the U.S. still use a form of this rule, even more than 100 years later.  Although medical and psychological experts have tried to modify the rule over the years, the courts have stuck with the old rule.

What happens now in Colorado?

Mr. Holmes will be interviewed and tested by a team of medical and psychological experts.  They will each attempt to answer the question of whether, at the time of the commission of the act, he was so mentally diseased that he couldn’t tell right from wrong.  The difficulty lies in the problem that they must try to analyze what condition Holmes was in at the time of the commission of the act.  Of course, this area of mental health is not cut and dried.  The doctors will most certainly disagree.

If that happens, the case would go to trial with each side presenting their expert medical and psychological witnesses.  The tried of fact would have to make a decision as to whether James Holmes was not guilty be reason of insanity.

If he found to be insane, he cannot be punished with the death penalty or even prison since no state in the U.S. does this to people who are mentally unable to distinguish right from wrong.

So, what happens next?  We’ll look at that in my next post.

The post Is James Holmes Crazy in Colorado? Part I appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

James Holmes?

Our usual, knee-jerk reaction is to categorize these kinds of people as psychopaths, aberrant, or crazy (whatever that means).  Mr. Chaltain points out that the real person behind the story and the crime are often much more complicated.

In my 30+ years as a Public Defender, I’ve represented serial killers and many extremely violent people.  Nothing will ever excuse their actions or what James Holmes is accused of doing.  And there are a certain percentage of violent people who are psychopaths without any conscience–who are not all that complicated and aren’t who I’m writing about.

But the majority of even violent criminals have more complicated situations:

1.  Chemical use/abuse.  In my experience, many homicides, for instance, occur when chemicals are involved–by either the killer or both the killer and victim.  People who otherwise are able to control themselves, get drunk (or high) and those controls snap-off.  This seems particularly common in the most violent actions actually, between close friends, husband/wife.

2.  Low self-image.  As Mr. Chaltain points out, it’s not necessarily anger at the victim that leads to violence, rather, it’s anger/self-loathing that causes these people to lash-out at others.

3.   Anger issues.  I know…as you’re reading this, you’re thinking: Duh!!  I mean anger that’s caused often by abuse to the criminal: physical/emotional abuse by parents, sexual abuse as a child, etc.  Lacking insight or healing, people snap and let the rage out–against a victim.

4.  Spur-of-the-moment actions.  Often, a criminal intends to commit a minor crime and in the process of doing it is triggered to act violently.  When I’ve interviewed clients like this and ask them, why did you do it?  they often blink their eyes and say, “I don’t know; it just happened.”

Where does James Holmes fit in here?  I don’t know for certain but it’s possible he may not be a psychopath.  We may not be able to be empathetic, but understanding some of the sources for violent actions may help us to prevent it from happening in other people.

The post Empathy for James Holmes? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.