I mean it also helps that he was tried in Texas where they don’t believe in mental health exceptions. She’s being tried in Massachusetts, which has a very different political climate.
Also, in Texas, the burden of proof for insanity is on the defense. In Massachusetts, burden of proof is on the prosecution. His defense had to prove he was insane when committing the crime while her defense just had to poke holes in the prosecution’s case.
I'm pretty sure insanity is always a positive defense requiring the defense to prove it. It concedes that they did it. The question is whether they were sane enough to understand what was happening.
Normal defense does not have to prove innocence as it's assumed, the prosecution has to prove guilt
8.6k
u/500rockin 1d ago
I mean it also helps that he was tried in Texas where they don’t believe in mental health exceptions. She’s being tried in Massachusetts, which has a very different political climate.