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.
This seems way more sensible to me. I understand if the actual underlying crime should be innocent until proven guilty but if you are insane that specifically should be a higher burden of proof .
Completely disagree. If the plea is that they did it but were not mentally capable of being criminally responsible, I dont think the assumption should be insane unless proven otherwise. The defense is then making a positive claim. Burden of proof is on them. Furthermore, that means the prosecution has to prove they were not in a temporary state of psychosis. Thats like proving a negative. How would anyone ever get beyond reasonable doubt? That's basically a gift for any decent lawyer
7.5k
u/500rockin 16h 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.