Prosecutors have the duty to earnestly prosecute a case but experts have a duty to loyalty to the court and the law. And experts in mental state matters must think through what has just happened.

The data are now well publicized, the jury in the Yates case knew that the defendant was aware her conduct was illegal -- but believed her actions were morally right and moreover, due to her delusions she was unable to conform to the requirements of the law.

The jury both ignored the Bigby standard and also relied to some extent upon the ALI standard which exists now for juveniles and existed prior to 1983 for adults in Texas.

Examiners are now in a bit of a bind: Most think very carefully about what is required to establish a claim of insanity. To be sure some breeze into the state from elsewhere and make a pronouncement without regard for the law, but most work very hard to apply the law to the case before them. But what now? Bigby specifically states that the defendant's reliance upon the defendant's own moral code is misplaced - the issue is awareness of illegality, precisely which was ignored in this jury trial.

But, because juries don't always follow the law, I suppose I would argue that until the Court of Criminal Appeals rules differently, or the legislature changes the law, that the technicalities of Bigby apply and I am obliged to think things through from that perspective. But it nonetheless troubles me.

As you work through this, I for one would be interested in your observations on the issue. It's a weighty topic, with many implications in legal, social, and moral aspects.

Though it will do little to resolve the dilemma, I must say I am heartened to see your comments, Floyd. I've been embroiled in more than my share of "battles of the experts." Though the current climate is one that places a premium on finding a hired gun to jack up one's own side of the case, often with too little regard to reaching the truest state of the facts as governed by applicable law, I would prefer that "my" expert give me a true picture of the facts within the expert's ambit of specialization. If it means my case is solidified, then so be it. If not, that's fine, too; either way, I need credible information, not a "yes man." That is no answer to the nefarious, yet persistent gremlin of jury nullification. If the applicable legal standard needs to be reassessed, the lawyer's job is to argue that head-on. Expert testimony can, of course, be invaluable in that pursuit. Nonetheless, Floyd's comments reaffirm for me that there remain conscientious experts out there who are worthy of consulting and putting on the stand. And that's a little sunshine in an otherwise fairly dreary world.

[This message was edited by Scott Brumley on 07-27-06 at .]

Floyd is indeed an ethical expert. In a very high profile murder case I tried 2 years ago, Floyd was retained by the defendant, who had indeed seemingly been raised in a charismatic religious life that many would define as dysfunctional.

Yet, on the ultimate questions of responsibility, Floyd's answers were truly a refreshing event, out of the countless numbers of other battles of the experts I have been involved in. In other words, he told the truth. And so often these days, in all facets of life, that is such a rare commodity.

Floyd is the real deal. He knows his stuff. He is very honest. The scariest thing about him is that he presents very, very well, and if he had adverse information to your case, well, I would really study up on the topics at hand.

As an aside, I just discovered that I have personal messages on this site. Never knew it before today. Floyd sent me some real nice messages before, and I did not ignore responding out of rudeness. Just ineptness.