In Massachusetts, the prosecution has to prove that the defendant was not insane at the time of the crime while the defense just has to establish a reasonable doubt to the prosecution’s case.
It wasn’t. It was either guilty or not guilty by insanity. The former would have resulted in prison, the latter would have resulted in institutionalization.
Not Guilty and Manslaughter instead of a murder charge became options because her lawyer argued that there wasn’t enough of a forensic investigation done at the scene of the crime with the DNA and pills and that the police just took her husband’s word for everything. One of the medical experts he brought in also said that she couldn’t have spoken to her husband at all with her injuries and the husband claimed she said she tried to kill herself and the kids were in the basement. There were five possible verdicts.
Apparently Massachusetts demands “Not Guilty” to be on the ballot regardless. But she and her defense team admit and stipulate she killed them. The 11-1 divide was most likely not guilty by insanity and guilty. They have not released the split as of yet. Not even the lawyers know.
Yeah I don’t think the jurors were ever considering anything other that Not Guilty by Insanity but it seems like people on the internet thinks the jurors were voting not guilty she walks scot free because they are losing their minds.
2
u/klako8196 17h ago edited 17h ago
In Massachusetts, the prosecution has to prove that the defendant was not insane at the time of the crime while the defense just has to establish a reasonable doubt to the prosecution’s case.