Saint Elizabeths Hospital, Washington, D.C. public psychiatric facility. |
James Holmes was charged with 166 counts of murder, attempted murder and other related offenses from his July 20, 2012 shooting rampage in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater that left twelve dead and at least fifty-eight injured. According to his attorneys, Holmes was in "the throes of a psychotic episode when
he committed acts that resulted in the tragic loss of life." With this
admission and the District Court Judge's acceptance of Holmes’s plea of not
guilty by reason of insanity, the scope of the trial was transformed from a
determination of factual guilt to whether or not Holmes was sane, and thus
culpable for his actions. Insanity pleas
have been around since ancient times, and the defense is based on the notion
that some people with mental illnesses because of a lack of understanding or
because of an inability to resist an urge are not culpable for their actions. As the defense has developed through time, it
has been inconsistently applied throughout the states.
In Colorado, after an insanity plea
is accepted, the defendant is ordered to be examined by an independent
psychiatrist to determine his or her sanity. In the case of Holmes, he was
institutionalized in the Colorado Mental Health Institute in Pueblo where he was
examined and is under constant supervision. On September 6, 2013 the Court received the
128 page sanity report and copies were given to both the State and to Holmes's
defense attorneys. This report outlines
the psychiatrist’s opinion of whether Holmes meets Colorado's legal definition
of insanity, i.e. the inability to tell the difference between right and wrong
because of a mental disease or defect, known as the M’Naughten rule.
The murder trial of James Holmes will begin sometime in 2014, and due to Holmes’s insanity plea, the government will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Holmes was sane at the time of the shooting.[1] Colorado is one of the eleven states that place the burden of proof in insanity defense cases on the State. To compare, D.C. follows the Model Penal Code rule for the insanity defense; requiring that the defendant prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they were insane at the time of the crime.[2]
The murder trial of James Holmes will begin sometime in 2014, and due to Holmes’s insanity plea, the government will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Holmes was sane at the time of the shooting.[1] Colorado is one of the eleven states that place the burden of proof in insanity defense cases on the State. To compare, D.C. follows the Model Penal Code rule for the insanity defense; requiring that the defendant prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they were insane at the time of the crime.[2]
Despite the fact that the State
shoulders the burden, an insanity plea is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. This is best evidenced by the microscopic
number of insanity pleas that are filed in Colorado. Recent numbers from the Colorado Judicial Branch show that defendants invoked the insanity defense in only 0.09% of all
felony cases between 2001 and 2011, and the plea was successful only 28% of the time. The scarcity of the pleas might be due to
their inherent riskiness. In Colorado,
the plea requires the defendant’s full cooperation while he or she is subject
to an independent psychiatric evaluation, and if the defendant does not
cooperate, they are prohibited from introducing their own mental health experts
to testify on their behalf, at trial or at a death-penalty hearing. In this context, cooperation has its common
and ordinary meaning, i.e. to cooperate means to “work or act together toward
common end or purpose.”[3] Generally, in cases where a defendant is
non-compliant, the defendant has chosen to remain silent. Additionally, not
only is whatever was said to the psychiatrist admissible at trial, but the psychiatrist
can comment on the defendant’s silence or non-compliance.[4] This report is vastly important in determining
the innocence or guilt of the party; as Michael Perlin, a New York Law School professor, has written in several papers, the final outcome in insanity cases matches the findings of the psychiatric reviews as often as 90% of the time.
As mentioned before, after an insanity
plea is accepted, the focus of the trial changes because the defendant is
admitting that he or she committed the crime or crimes, but that he or she should
not be held legally responsible for their actions. Because of the transformative nature of the plea,
Washington D.C., like other states, has safeguarded a defendant’s right to, or
not to, plead guilty by reason of insanity. In D.C., this is called a Frendak inquiry.[5] If there is a substantial question of the
defendant’s sanity at the time of the crime, the trial court is required to
determine whether, based on the defendant’s present mental capacity, he
or she can intelligently and voluntarily waive the insanity defense.[6] A pre-trial determination of competency
does not preclude a Frendak inquiry if the defendant’s mental health at the
time of the crime is called into question at any phase of the trial.[7] The exact type and amount of evidence
that will trigger the court’s obligation to conduct a Frendak inquiry is fact
specific and will vary from case to case. The goal of the inquiry is to ensure
that the defendant knowingly is aware of the availability of the defense, and
whether or not the defendant recognizes the advantages and disadvantages of the
case. If a defendant is found to have
waived the defense knowingly and willingly, the court cannot impose the defense
over the defendant’s objection.
The
determination of whether or not to pursue this defense is something that must
be weighed carefully; as mentioned above, when a defendant raises an insanity
defense and is compelled to be examined, the defendant is basically waiving their
Fifth Amendment privileges with regard to that psychiatric testimony.[8] Additionally, those who are found guilty
after raising the insanity defense generally serve significantly longer
sentences than defendants convicted on similar charges who chose not to raise
it.[9] Further, even if the defendant is found
not guilty by reason of insanity, they could be detained for a longer period
than they would have been if they were found guilty. This is because the
defendant is committed to a mental facility until a time he or she is found to
be sane; to put it in perspective, the average stay in St. Elizabeths is eight years.
As an attorney, it will sometimes make
more sense to not try to raise the insanity defense in every minor case,
because of the potential lengthy stay.
Even though the latter two reasons
listed above might not be applicable to Holmes, because he was looking at
either life in prison or the death penalty, he still initially pled not guilty.
He was eventually allowed to change it
to not guilty by reason of insanity, but the fact that it was not initially
raised is telling of the complicated calculus that defense counsel has to take
into account.
Cyle Barber
Senior Editor, Criminal Law Practitioner
Picture by Tomf688 via Wikimedia Commons.
[1]
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-105.5 (2013).
[2]
D.C. Code § 24-50.
[3]
People v. Dondurant, 296 P.3d 200, 209-11 (Colo. App. 2012).
[4] See Johnson v. People, 470 P.2d 37, 76
(Colo. 1970); People v. Tally, 7 P.3d
172, 175 (Colo. App. 1999); People v.
Vialpando, 954 P.2d 617, 622 (Colo. App. 1997).
[5] Frendak v. United States, 408 A.2d
364 (D.C. 1979).
[6] Id at 378.
[7] See Phenis
v. United States, 909 A.2d 138, 159 (D.C. 2006) (finding that the
defendant’s history of mental problems and his behavior at trial should have
prompted the court to conduct a Frendak inquiry).
[8] See United
States v. Byers, 740 F.2d 1104, 1115 (D.C. 1984).
[9] Michael Perlin, Mental Disability Law:
Civil and Criminal § 9C-3.
No comments:
Post a Comment