The following appeared in a Tyler newspaper in connection with a story on a murder prosecution:

"The court has designated local attorney Christi Kennedy as court information officer to provide insight into the technical aspects of the court's rulings and other official actions but she cannot analyze the court proceedings."

What do you think about such an idea?

John, as you saw from the article, this was done on the capital murder prosecution of Deanna Laney (The housewife who murdered her children in Smith County the day before Mother's Day). For Smith County, this case obviously developed an unusual amount of media attention. Two days later there were more than a dozen satellite trucks around the courthouse, probably hoping for California type coverage and hearings galore. Judge Cynthia Kent very quickly imposed a restrictive order on media access which dampened the ardor of the reporter's. Christi Kennedy is a local attorney practicing with a firm that mainly deals with 1983 defense. I understand that there is, or there was one planned, a Smith COunty website which contains all the court documents regarding the case.

Net effect, Christi will probably provide better analysis than most of the talking airheads, excuse me legal consultants, for the media.

Yes, the reason I mentioned the appointment was that the subsequent article in the Tyler newspaper was remarkably free of the sort of talking head experts that invade these types of cases. The CIO provides a very accurate description of the insanity defense law and explained issues without resort to hyperactive rhetoric or opinion.

It also kept the defense lawyer and prosecutor out of the picture, leaving them to try the case (imagine that). I thought it was a creative response to the potential for out-of-control media. Of course, it only works as well as the CIO.

Well, a jury was sworn yesterday in the Laney capital murder, and then sequestered, even though evidence will not begin until Monday. According to the 10:00 news, deputies will monitor all phone calls to the jurors, Court TV is to set up Sunday.

http://www.tylerpaper.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11182127&BRD=1994&PAG=461&dept_id=226369&rfi=6

OK, all very interesting, but here is a question. Why have a jury trial, spending all that money and dealing with the media, when every single expert agrees the defendant was insane at the time of the crime?

That's a good question, John, but what are the other options? While the competency law was changed to allow agreed findings of incompetency, there is no agreed plea of "not guilty by reason of insanity" -- what do you do with these people (assuming she really was legally insane)?

Could this be another argument for a change in the law to a "guilty but insane" option, one that would be available as a plea or at trial? That's an idea the Senate Jurisprudence committee will be exploring during the interim (with help from Chuck Rosenthal's office), but this case throws in a new wrinkle ...

If the defendant suffered severe mental illness at the time of the offense, it seems quite unlikely she will ever be sufficiently competent to plead guilty to the conduct. In short, such a statute would have to figure out how to handle Moran, 509 U.S. 389. While a jury can certainly make such a finding (and the defense can be nominal) that does appear to be the only feasible mechanism-- short of continued treatment (and "incarceration") under 46B.101 et seq.

Is it so complicated for both sides to agree to waive a jury, plead not guilty by reason of insanity to a judge, put on some stipulated evidence (including expert opinions that all agree) and have the judge issue a decision?

I have done that before when prosecuting in Houston. The judge was none other than Ted Poe. We even did it with the defendant present only telephonically. The defendant was too ill (with AIDS) to attend and had committed the crime (aggravated assault by pointing a shotgun at a police officer) during a psychotic episode brought on by his illness.

If you dump a case like this on a judge it has enormous political consequences for that Judge. How do you maintain peace after the Judge is forced to make a very unpopular decision to let the def walk away form killing her kids?????Wouldn't it be better to let a jury decide? Maybe it will cause enough of a mess to get a change in the legislation that allows the Defendant to walk free.

So, how would it work if the Legislature changed the law to permit the defendant to plead guilty but insane? Where would the defendant go and for how long?

Good question; what should such a sentence include, and how should it differ from the result obtained after a NGBRI verdict?

My husband who is a real estate attorney couldn't believe that she would just walk free. The jurors who don't get to hear what the result of a not guilty by reason of insnity will be furious at the system that doesn't allow them to know waht really happens. How about an automatic commitment to a secure mental faclity for life????

"Guilty but insane" is an oximoron. A crime requires a guilty mens rea. Someone who kills her children during a psychotic episode because the voices tell her to do it, is dangerous, but not a criminal. Such a person belongs in the state hospital.

In the early 60s, a lot of smart people came up with a wonderful new idea: Let's stop "warehousing" dangerous mental patients in state hospitals. Instead, most of them should live normal lives, and be able to go to neighborhood mental health centers to get their pyschotropic meds.

It's proven to be a disaster. Many of these patients (maybe the vast majority), are not responsible enough to stay on their meds, or to stay away from alcohol and narcotics. They soon start to "decompensate," and soon they are in no condition to figure out they need to get back to the clinic.

If they hurt someone, they'll be sent for a short stay at the state hospital. There they'll get them back on their meds and on an even keel, and then they're let go again to repeat the process.

If you've ever tried to carry on a serious conversation with the people who manage the patients in a state hospital, you know what an Alice In Wonderland experience it is. I guess they are smart people, but basic logic is not one of their strong points.

IF it's such an oxymoron, what about 'no contest but insane'. The spirit of the no contest plea is to admit that there will be evidence that the defendant committed the crime, but that the defendant for whatever reason chooses not to controvert said evidence.

A criminal trespass defendant has an agreed hearing on competency. He goes off for evaluation and medication. After the appropriate time, he's determined to be competent to stand trial. Now he wants to claim he was crazy at the time of the crime and uses his lack of competency as evidence of that claim.

"I was so not in my right mind, then. Now I'm on the proper medication, and things are much clearer."

The thing is, I think I believed him. But what happens to him if he is, as is discussed above, incapable of staying on his medication and he slips into his delusions again? Now that he's been in the system, should there be some sort of monitor over this person?

It comes back to: how can we ensure that these individuals don't slide back into the mental difficulties that contributed to their criminal behavoir? What is the preventative measure?

(I don't know the outcome of this case, I moved on to Cooke County before the issues were resolved.)

Many people have reservations about anything called "guilty but insane" because of its oxymoronic nature, and with good reason. Another option could be "guilty but mentally ill" -- but that blurs the line between law and medicine so much that it would likely open pandora's box to every defendant (hey, what isn't a mental illness these days?). Would Philip's idea of a "no contest but insane" or "no contest due to insanity" plea work? What do y'all think?

There are two issues here: (a) how would it legally work, and (b) in practice, would it increase our options and better protect public safety. The second goal seems laudable, but will the first issue trip it up?

Oh, and we all know the reason the state won't stop mainstreaming people who need better care (and sometimes better security): it's money, plain and simple.

[This message was edited by Shannon Edmonds on 04-02-04 at .]

The problem is not the label, although I think the current one is accurate: not guilty by reason of insanity. That label indicates that the person committed the crime but is not morally responsible because of a mental problem.

The problem is the procedure following a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity: commitment to a mental hospital, followed by annual review until cure.

Interesting that defense attorneys complain that juries are not told what happens with a verdict of NGRI. They would really scream if the jury were told the truth: a quick hearing, a short stay, and then release (followed by decompensation and a new crime).

We need a law that provides for guaranteed, long-term institutionalization in a mental health hospital following a verdict of NGRI. Is that possible?

John, that's the $64,000 question.

How does a court maintain jurisdiction over a defendant who has been found NG(RI or not)? Even in civil commitments of sexually violent offenders, which are still controversial, the defendant has been found guilty at some point in the past. How much more controversial -- or legally impossible, for that matter -- is it to grant a court continuing jurisdiction over an "innocent" person "just because"? Some states have said "screw the oxymoron problem, we think it's more important to deal with these people" and have created a GBI verdict. But neither option seems ideal.

Is there a third way? If there is, I don't think anyone else in the country has hit upon it yet ...

[This message was edited by Shannon Edmonds on 04-05-04 at .]