Category: 1

When Is a Defendant Considered Legally Insane?

05/17/2012

What is required to prove a criminal defendant is legally insane? Each state has its own laws and rules about its legal definition of insanity, but there are some general concepts that can be used to understand what it means to be legally insane. It is important to note that the insanity defense is rarely used and has even been abolished in some states.

Insanity is generally considered an "excuse" to committing a crime. An excuse defense is where, even though the defendant engaged in criminal conduct, he is excused from legal responsibility because of some condition in the defendant.

Insanity is also considered to be an "affirmative defense." An affirmative defense is one in which the defendant must affirmatively assert the defense and produce some evidence supporting it. For some affirmative defenses in some states, the defendant also has the burden of proving the defense is true.

Defendants are generally presumed to be sane, so a prosecutor does not need to prove the defendant was sane unless the defendant puts his sanity into question. Once it is put into question, either the prosecution must prove the defendant was sane beyond a reasonable doubt or the defendant must prove he was insane by a preponderance of the evidence.

In some states the defendant must enter a special plea, such as not guilty by reason of insanity. Some states have a separate sanity phase where the jury determines the defendant's sanity after it has decided he committed the charged crime.

The focus of determining a defendant's sanity is his mental condition at the time of the crime. (This is one way the test for insanity is different than the test for competence to stand trial. For a discussion of the differences between sanity and competency, check out this prior post.)

To be found insane, the defendant must show that he suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time he committed the crime. Generally, the mental disease or defect may be permanent or temporary.

The M'Naghten Test

The defendant's mental condition must satisfy the legal standard for insanity. The M'Naghten test is traditionally the most commonly used test to determine insanity. Under the M'Naghten test, a person is considered legally insane if:

1. at the time of the crime
2. he suffered from a defect of reason that resulted in him either
a. not knowing the nature and quality of the act he performed, or
b. not knowing his act was wrong.

A defendant knows the nature of his act if he knows what act he is performing. He knows the quality of his act if he understands the consequences that flow from his act.

For example, a woman is charged with murdering her baby by drowning. To prove she was legally insane, she must prove that because of a defect of reason, she either did not know she was holding her baby's head underwater, or did not know that holding the baby's head underwater would result in him drowning.

Alternately, the defendant can show she did not know that her act was wrong. The term "wrong" in this context may mean either legally wrong or morally wrong, depending on the state.

In the above example, if the woman knew she was holding her baby's head underwater and understood this would cause the baby to drown, but she believed she must do so to rid him of the devil, she would assert that she did not know her act was wrong. This would be an example of a moral wrong.

Insane Delusions

If someone suffers from delusions because of a defect of reason, they may be able to assert the insanity defense, depending on the nature of the delusion. If the delusion was to a fact that, if true, would have justified the defendant's acts, he could assert the insanity defense. If, however, the delusion was to a fact that, if true, would not have justified the defendant's acts, he may not be considered insane.

For example, the defendant was delusional and believed the victim was holding a gun when in fact e was holding a pen. The victim pointed the pen at the defendant, who believed he was about to be shot. The defendant pulled out a gun and shot the victim. The defendant could assert the insanity defense because, had the victim really pointed a gun at him, he would have been justified in shooting the victim in self-defense.

However, if the defendant's delusion was that the victim tricked him out of his money, and he shot the victim in revenge, he would not be considered legally insane because, even if his belief was true, tricking someone out of their money does not justify shooting them.

Irresistible Impulse Test

The irresistible impulse test is sometimes used in conjunction with the M'Naghten test. Under this test, the defendant must have a defect of the mind that makes it impossible for him to control his actions.

It is not sufficient to meet this test if someone is overcome by anger, jealousy, or other strong emotions. (Such passion may be sufficient to reduce a killing from murder to voluntary manslaughter, but it cannot be a complete defense.)

Model Penal Code Test

Another test for insanity is set out by the Model Penal Code. Under this test a person is considered insane if, because of a mental disease or defect, the person did not have the capacity to:
1. understand the criminality or wrongfulness of his conduct, or
2. to conform his conduct to the law.

This is sometimes called the "policeman at the elbow test." In other words, if the person would have committed the act even if there had been a police officer at her elbow watching her, she is considered unable to have understood the wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the law.

A defendant's sanity may be proven by either medical professionals or by lay (non-expert) witnesses. Lay witnesses may testify about the defendant's behavior around the time of the crime to help the jury determine whether the defendant was sane or insane at the time of the crime.

To understand the differences between insanity and competency to stand trial, click here.

Claim your free E-book on The Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery, and Legal Drama.

Add Comment

Understanding the Criminal Justice System: 6 Stages to Guide You

03/14/2012

0 Comments

When you are in the criminal justice system or you are writing about the criminal justice system, it is helpful to know what stage of the process you are in. Different things happen at different stages, and you should know where you are at any given time.

I have broken down the criminal justice system into 6 basic stages. I will give a brief synopsis of each stage here. I will go into each stage in greater detail in future posts.

1. Crime Stage - This is where the crime occurs. Crimes may be instantaneous, like a shooting, or may be ongoing, like a sophisticated ponzi scheme.

2. Investigation Stage - This can occur simultaneously with an ongoing crime. In most cases, the investigation phase happens after the crime has been committed. An arrest usually happens during either the investigation phase or charging stage.

3. Charging Stage - After an investigation is complete, a prosecutor must decide whether to bring charges, who to charge, and what crimes to charge. This is an important step because it turns a suspect into a formally charged defendant and triggers certain constitutional rights.

4. Pre-Trial Stage - Once a defendant is charged, the pre-trial stage begins. The defense attorney will review the prosecution's evidence and may bring motions, such as a motion to dismiss or a motion to suppress evidence. Witnesses are interviewed and prepared for trial.

5. Trial Stage - This is where the fun happens. Most trials are in front of juries, although a judge can hear trials too. It's up to the defendant. The prosecution has the burden of proof and will try to introduce evidence to prove the defendant guilty. The defense need not introduce any evidence.

6. Post-Trial Stage - After a defendant has been convicted at trial, there are a slew of things that can happen. Sentencing happens in every case. The defendant may also bring a new trial motion. The defendant can appeal, file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, or petition for clemency or a pardon.

Each of these phases has its own unique challenges, goals, rules, and rights. I will develop each in more detail in future posts.

A fictional crime story may take place in one, some, or all of these stages. Whichever stages your story takes place in, it's critical to understand the rules and purposes of those stages. I hope you will find this to be a helpful guide on your journey.

In the meantime, make sure to sign up for the FREE eBook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.

Add Comment

Objection Sustained or Objection Overruled! What Does It Mean?

01/20/2012

0 Comments

I remember before law school watching legal television shows or movies. When an attorney would object at trial, the judge would rule, either "sustained," or "overruled." I had to really concentrate and think it through to figure out what the ruling meant. Now, it's second-nature to me.

Here's a quick guide for those who aren't in court everyday:

Sustained: When an objection is sustained, the judge has determined that is a valid objection. That means the question was improper under the rules of evidence. The witness may not answer the question. (If the witness answers anyway, that answer may be "stricken.")

An easy way to remember this is Sustained = Stop, as in the witness must stop and not answer the lawyer's prior question.

Overruled: When an objection is overruled, the judge has determined the objection is invalid. The question may stand. The witness must then answer the question.

A shorthand way to remember this is Overruled = Ongoing, as in the witness may continue as if the objection never occurred. Hope this helps!

For more information about some of the differences between the way things happen in fictionalized legal proceedings and in real life, get my free Writer's Guide: Top 7 Mistakes Made By Writers of Mystery, Crime and Legal Drama.

Add Comment

What Is a Grand Jury? How Is a Grand Jury Different Than a Trial Jury?

12/14/2011

0 Comments

Most people are familiar with a trial jury. A trial jury is usually made up of 12 people who listen to a trial and decide the defendant's guilt or innocence. In law, a trial jury is called a "petit jury," to distinguish it from a grand jury.

A grand jury has many differences and similarities with a trial jury. The grand jury is generally much larger, often comprised of at least 23 people. Like a petit jury, a grand jury is made up of regular citizens who respond to a jury summons.

The grand jury usually meets once a week for many months or even a year. This schedule is different from a petit jury, which usually meets every court day until a trial is over.

The grand jury is an investigative body that can issue subpoenas for witnesses or documents. The evidence is generally presented by prosecutors. The grand jury reviews the evidence and determines whether a person should be charged with a crime, or indicted.

A person being investigated, called "a target" of a grand jury, is not allowed to have an attorney present evidence to the grand jury. Neither the target nor the target's attorney may be present in the grand jury proceedings unless subpoenaed (or ordered to testify).

A target, if called to testify, or any other witness before the grand jury, may "plead the Fifth," or invoke their right to remain silent. A person may not later be punished for remaining silent because it is a constitutional right. Grand jury proceedings are kept secret until someone is charged. It is therefore possible a target may not know he or she is being investigated.

Ostensibly, the grand jury's purpose is to prevent overzealous prosecutors from charging people with crimes without sufficient evidence. However, in reality, grand juries usually follow the prosecutor's lead and do whatever the prosecutor suggests.

All federal criminal charges are made through a grand jury. Many states use grand juries as well. States are not required to use a grand jury. States may use other means of "checking" the prosecutor's exercise of charging discretion. For example, in California, prosecutors can use a grand jury, but they usually use a preliminary hearing instead.

In a preliminary hearing, the prosecutor presents evidence before a judge, who must decide whether there is probable cause to believe the defendant committed the charged crimes. A defendant may cross-examine witnesses and present evidence at a preliminary hearing, which is different than a grand jury.

The role of the grand jury is written into the U.S. Consitution. The Fifth Amendment states in part, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury."

Sign up to receive my FREE Writer's Guide: Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.

Add Comment

When Kids Commit Crimes

11/11/2011

0 Comments

When kids commit crimes, they can end up in the juvenile justice system. In many ways, juvenile criminal law is its own unique system. There is some overlap with the adult criminal justice system, but there are many key differences.

The ostensible purpose of the juvenile justice system is to try to rehabilitate children who have gone astray. The theory is that children who have committed crimes may simply be misguided, and there is still hope to save them from a life of crime. For the most part, adult offenders are considered to be beyond rehabilitation, and the primary goals of the criminal justice system are to punish and prevent further crime through deterrence and incapacitation.

Juveniles have different courts and different rights. Usually children have less rights than adults. On the flip side, juvenile offenses usually do not carry the same stigma or harsh consequences as adult convictions.

Like adults, juveniles have a right to an attorney. Unlike adults, however, they have no right to a jury trial. Juvenile court judges  have tremendous discretion when deciding what happens to a child who has committed a crime - they can send the child home, to a group home placement, to treatment, or to juvenile hall. If a minor fails in one setting, the judge may try a different one. Minors also have less right to privacy compared to adults, so they can be searched under circumstances where an adult could not, like at school.

Sometimes a court will decide that a particular child who committed a particular crime should be tried as an adult. This may happen if the child is particularly mature or the crime was particularly sophisticated or violent. When that happens, the case is transferred to a regular adult criminal court. At that point, all the rights, procedures and protections that normally apply to adults then apply to the child.

Add Comment

Supreme Court to Decide Case About Eyewitness Identifications

11/03/2011

0 Comments

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case where the question is whether an eyewitness identification of the defendant should have been allowed in court.

Eyewitness identifications are often believed to be among the strongest evidence possible. If someone says they saw the defendant commit the crime, chances are most people will believe the defendant is guilty.

Eyewitness identifications are also a common point of drama in crime stories. A witness looks the defendant in the eye, points from the witness stand, and says, "He's the one. I'm sure of it."

However, many studies have found that eyewitness testimony is notoriously untrustworthy. Of 250 exonerations based on DNA evidence, 190 prisoners had been convicted based on mistaken eyewitness identifications.

That said, identifications are generally only kept out of court when the police used unduly suggestive tactics to get the witness to identify a particular person. Otherwise, traditional trial protections, such as cross-examination, expert testimony, and jury instructions, are relied on to protect against a jury wrongfully convicting someone based on a faulty eyewitness identification.

Whether that will continue to be the case will be decided soon by the U.S. Supreme Court in Perry v. New Hampshire.

Add Comment

Closing Arguments in Michael Jackson Death Trial

11/03/2011

0 Comments

Closing arguments are set today in the trial of Michael Jackson's doctor, Conrad Murray. This is the point where each side will pull together all the evidence the jury has heard, and explain why the evidence points to guilt or not.

Closing arguments are often the most exciting part of a trial because this is the only time that the lawyers are permitted to "argue." They must confine their arguments to the evidence that was admitted at trial, or reasonable inferences that can be made from that evidence. The lawyers must also tailor their arguments to the law that the jury is instructed to apply.

Procedurally, the prosecution goes first. This is because the prosecution has the burden of proof. The prosecution must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. During closing argument, the prosecutor will explain how the evidence proves the defendant guilty.

The defense then argues why the evidence does not prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense attorney may even argue that the evidence demonstrates innocence, although such argument is rare. Usually, the defense strategy is to poke holes in the prosecution's case, bit by bit, to show there is a reasonable doubt about guilt.

Finally, the prosecution is permitted a rebuttal argument to respond to the defense. Again, because the prosecution has the burden of proof, they are permitted the last word.

In the end, however, the jury's decision must be based on the evidence and the law. The attorneys' statements and arguments are not evidence. They are merely provided as an attempt to guide the jury in its decision.

Add Comment

Michael Jackson Death Trial Watch: Goals of Cross-Examining an Expert Witness

10/28/2011

0 Comments

Several experts have testified for both sides in the manslaughter trial of Michael Jackson's doctor, Conrad Murray. There are two basic, and competing, goals when an attorney cross-examines an expert witness.

Generally, the side presenting the expert will have spent considerable time laying a foundation for the expert witness's expertise: their credentials, education, publications, and experience in the field about which they are testifying.

The opposing side may try to attack the expert's credentials. Maybe they have book knowledge, but little real-world experience. Perhaps their studies have been on a related subject but not directly about the matter in dispute at trial. Regardless, to the extent possible, the opposing attorney will try to minimize the expert's impact by challenging his or her expertise.

Before doing that, however, the opposing counsel should try to use the expert to advance his or her own case. For example, if a defense expert can offer anything in support of the prosecution's case, the prosecutor should try to get that information before the jury. It is very powerful evidence for a witness engaged and called by the other side to give favorable testimony for your case.

Eliciting any favorable testimony should be done before attacking the expert's testimony because the impact of the expert's testimony will be lessened after he or she has been discredited (hopefully).

Add Comment

"The Prosecution Rests"

10/21/2011

0 Comments

The prosecution is expected to rest today in the trial of Michael Jackson's doctor. What does it mean when the prosecution "rests?" It basically means the prosecution has finished presenting the evidence it has to try to prove the defendant guilty. It has finishind its case-in-chief. The defense then has the opportunity to put on evidence if it so chooses.

Unlike the prosecution, the defense in a criminal trial need not put on any case at all. This is because the prosecution has the burden of proof. To convict someone, the prosecution must prove the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Dr. Murray committed involuntary manslaughter against Michael Jackson. (See prior posts here and here for more about the involuntary manslaughter charges.)

Once the prosecution has presented all the evidence it believes proves the defendant guilty, it rests its case. The defense then has the option of putting on its own case. However, the defendant need not do anything. He may simply attempt to poke holes in the prosecution's case, and argue to the jury that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof.

If the jury has a reasonble doubt, whether based on weaknesses in the prosecution's case or the strength of the defense evidence or both, it must acquit. Although they need not do so, Dr. Conrad Murray's defense attorneys have indicated they intend to call witnesses in his defense. If Dr. Murray chose to testify, that would also happen during the defense case.

Add Comment

One of the Best Courtroom Drama Scenes Broke the Rules

10/19/2011

0 Comments

Knowing the rules of criminal law is essential to creating a piece with authenticity. However, that does not mean that the rules must always be followed. Breaking the rules for the sake of drama is perfectly acceptable and often necessary to create a compelling story. The key is to first know what the rules are, so you can then make an intelligent decision about how and when to break them.

One of the best courtroom drama scenes in movie history broke the rules and did it in a way that did not take away from the film's authenticity. Remember this exchange?

        Witness: You want answers?
        Attorney: I think I'm entitled to.
        Witness: You want answers?
        Attorney: I want the truth!
        Witness: You can't handle the truth!

Of course, this is the height of drama in the courtroom scene of A Few Good Men. This is the culmination of an epic battle between Tom Cruise as the defense attorney and Jack Nicholson as the witness.

This exchange is followed by a long recitation by the witness about the importance of the military to our ordered society even though we sometimes do not like the way they conduct their business.

This scene breaks the rules because trials are conducted in a question-and-answer format. The lawyer asks questions, and the witness answers. Here we have the opposite. The witness is asking questions and the lawyer is answering. Then the witness gives a long speech that is not in response to any question. (The objection there would be "nonresponsive" or "no question pending.")

However, it works for the story here because Tom Cruise's character is trying to push Jack Nicholson's character to admit that he gave the order that killed the victim and is therefore responsible for the death. It's an important reveal for the witness to explain why he does what he does even though most people would consider it "wrong."

More importantly, the movie can break these rules for the sake of drama without losing credibility because most of the movie is very authentic. There is an understanding of the way criminal cases and trials really operate that pervades the entire movie. That kind of authenticity throughout the story permits the knowledgeable viewer to forgive the occasional rule being broken. Especially when the result is such great drama!

The lesson is that breaking the rules doesn't take away from credibility when it is done conscientiously and with an understanding of the choices you are making.

Add Comment

<< Previous

All-Things-Criminal

Get your FREE E-Book revealing The Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama:

Author

Blythe Leszkay is a successful and experienced criminal attorney, criminal law professor, and consultant to writers and filmmakers. See About Me. This blog is intended to answer common criminal law questions, dispel misconceptions, and explain misunderstood criminal law concepts. It is also a place to discuss any crime or law related topics of interest. Contact me for a free initial consultation on your film or writing project.

When Is a Defendant Considered Legally Insane?

Understanding the Criminal Justice System: 6 Stages to Guide You

Objection Sustained or Objection Overruled! What Does It Mean?

What Is a Grand Jury? How Is a Grand Jury Different Than a Trial Jury?

When Kids Commit Crimes

Supreme Court to Decide Case About Eyewitness Identifications

Closing Arguments in Michael Jackson Death Trial

Michael Jackson Death Trial Watch: Goals of Cross-Examining an Expert Witness

"The Prosecution Rests"

One of the Best Courtroom Drama Scenes Broke the Rules

All-Things-Criminal

Author

Categories

Get Email Updates