In past posts, I’ve written about the recent effort on the part of defense lawyers in various cases around the country to have their clients be found not guilty by reason of insanity.  I’ve discussed the standard that is used in almost all states in the country and what the procedure and outcomes can be.

But then you hear people say, “The client is incompetent to stand trial.”  What does that mean?  Is it different from insanity?

It is something far different from insanity although both stem from the mental illness of the defendant.  If there’s a suggestion that a defendant is incompetent, that questions their ability to both:

1.  Understand the proceedings against them and

2.  Be able to communicate with their lawyer.

This is a decision that can be raised by the defense lawyer, prosecutor, or judge.  Prior to any proceedings, the defendant would be interviewed by a psychologist or psychiatrist with an effort to answer the above two questions.  If the doctor decides that the defendant is unable to do both of these, in Minnesota, that means no trial can begin.  If it’s a felony charge, the proceedings are delayed while the defendant receives treatment to, hopefully, get him into a competent position.  If it’s a misdemeanor, the case would be dismissed.

Sometimes, the treatment may take several years to accomplish.  The defendant would be interviewed and tested periodically to determine his competency.  The difference between this procedure and insanity is that an incompetent person cannot even be tried.

Of course, it often happens that the defense will claim incompetency and the prosecution will disagree.  In that case, experts for both sides will conduct tests and interviews with the defendant.  The judge would hold a hearing in which the experts would each give their opinion with supporting documentation.  The judge would have to decide whether the defendant is competent or not.  If the decision is competent, the trial will go forward.

In my experience, a finding of incompetency is actually much more common than a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity.  Do you think this is just a “cheap” way of avoiding criminal responsibility??

The post Incompetent to Stand Trial?? 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.