Colorado Dude - Insanity Plea?

Wow. I guess it is extremely difficult for a Prosecutor here in CO if they try the Insanity plea. The Prosecutor is not allowed to have expert testimony from a shrink, but the Defense can have as many as they want.
 
Wow. I guess it is extremely difficult for a Prosecutor here in CO if they try the Insanity plea. The Prosecutor is not allowed to have expert testimony from a shrink, but the Defense can have as many as they want.
But the prosecutor can cross examine the defence's psyche's?

Makes sense. The burden of proof that a psychosis of some type is on the defense, if that is the claimed defense. Otherwise the defense would have nothing to rely on.

The prosecutor doesn't have to show state of mind -the defense does, the prosecutor already has the acts documented.
 
But the prosecutor can cross examine the defence's psyche's?
They can, but that is really fruitless. The Jury gets to hear testimony from shrink after shrink in support of the Defense, but not one shrink is allowed to support the Prosecution.

Makes sense. The onus of proof that a psychosis of some type is on the defense, if that is the claimed defense. Otherwise the defense would have nothing to rely on.
It doesn't make sense. Both sides should have access to expert testimony.

The prosecutor doesn't have to show state of mind -the defense does, the prosecutor already has the acts documented.
The Prosecutor should to be able to show that some shrinks believe the acts were not "caused" by what shrinks have to say in support of the Defense.
 
They can, but that is really fruitless. The Jury gets to hear testimony from shrink after shrink in support of the Defense, but not one shrink is allowed to support the Prosecution.
Because the Defense has to make it's case that insanity overcomes the act/preplanning, ect.

It doesn't make sense. Both sides should have access to expert testimony
Can't have dueling psychiatrists,( he's delusional - he's not delusional) the cross examination of the defenses psychiatrist either bolsters the insanity plea, or dissolves it. Still the prosecutor should have the ability to use a psychiatrist, out of court for a resourse -i'm sure that's allowed.
The Prosecutor should to be able to show that some shrinks believe the acts were not "caused" by what shrinks have to say in support of the Defense
.By pleading insanity the defense accepts the case as submitted, the defense(claim) is (perp) not being able to know what he was doing by impaired mental capacity.
The prosecutor doesn't need to have a psychiatrist refute the defense expert testimony itself. Prosecutor only have to refute the basis for the claim. by cross examining the defense's witness.
 
Because the Defense has to make it's case that insanity overcomes the act/preplanning, ect.

Can't have dueling psychiatrists,( he's delusional - he's not delusional) the cross examination of the defenses psychiatrist either bolsters the insanity plea, or dissolves it. Still the prosecutor should have the ability to use a psychiatrist, out of court for a resourse -i'm sure that's allowed.
.By pleading insanity the defense accepts the case as submitted, the defense(claim) is (perp) not being able to know what he was doing by impaired mental capacity.
The prosecutor doesn't need to have a psychiatrist refute the defense expert testimony itself. Prosecutor only have to refute the basis for the claim. by cross examining the defense's witness.

I disagree. The fact that there are "expert" witnesses for one side gives them a credibility that would otherwise not exist. That only one side is allowed to have it clearly works in the favor of one side of the case. Cross examination notwithstanding, a jurist who gives that expert credibility will dismiss the psychiatric prowess of an attorney who is not trained in psychiatry. It becomes a battle of credibility. It is difficult to argue that the lawyer is an equal expert to the witness. Do you want to hire a lawyer to help your depressed child, or a shrink?
 
I disagree. The fact that there are "expert" witnesses for one side gives them a credibility that would otherwise not exist. That only one side is allowed to have it clearly works in the favor of one side of the case. Cross examination notwithstanding, a jurist who gives that expert credibility will dismiss the psychiatric prowess of an attorney who is not trained in psychiatry. It becomes a battle of credibility. It is difficult to argue that the lawyer is an equal expert to the witness. Do you want to hire a lawyer to help your depressed child, or a shrink?

That only one side is allowed to have it clearly works in the favor of one side of the case
The prosecution would be calling a psychiatrist (expert) as to the defendents state of mind. What purpose? The prosecution already has the acceptence of guilt

1. I doubt I'd want my prosecution dependent on my own expert witness performance; a good enough reason for the prosecution not to call experts.
2. In effect you have the prosecution in a dispute against anothr expert for the defense. The defense witness is trying to build expert testimony.
He comes to conclusive claims why the defedent is innocent..his support for the insanity defense.

3. None of the defense testimony matters so long as the prosecution can show doubt as to the basis of - not facts of the testimony.
The facts of the experts credibility doesn't matter, if the prosecution shows it doesn't apply to this defendent's state of mind at the time of actions.
 
The prosecution would ve calling a psychiatrist (expert) as to the defendents stae of mind.
1. I doubt I'd want my prosecution dependent on my own expert witness performance; a good enough reason for the prosecution not to call experts.
There would be no requirement for calling an expert, it isn't like you'd have to.

2. In effect you have the prosecution in a dispute against anothr expert for the defense. The defense witness is trying to build expert testimony.
He comes to conclusive claims why the defedent is innocent..his support for the insanity defense.
The expert for the prosecution would simply have to support a theory that the defendant has the capacity to understand that what they did was wrong.

3. None of the defense testimony matters so long as the prosecution can show doubt as to the basis of - not facts of the testimony.
The facts of the experts credibility doesn't matter, if the prosecution shows it doesn't apply to this defendent's state of mind at the time of actions.
Again, it depends entirely on the credibility factor. The jurist who grants that credibility is unlikely to be swayed other than by just as credible of a source, the attorney just isn't credible as to whether the level of necessary understanding is there. There is a reason that in most states the Prosecution is allowed to call an expert witness to testify on behalf of the State.

Neither expert witness would be allowed to testify to the "ultimate" case, whether the man is "insane" or not nor can they testify to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, that is for the jury to decide.
 
^OK if that's the norm in other states ( i have no legal training), then refutation of an expert witness by another expert witness, seems odd, in insanity, as they're trying the psychological state of the defendents mind.The defense offers a theory, the prosecution should be able to make her case why even if the theory is correct, it still doesn't quailify as an exoneraton from guilt.

I could see that in a case where insanity is not claimed - then surely all experts would be called, as guilt is in doubt for jurors.
What strike me as odd is calling a witnes for the prosecution to dispute the opponents witness, when guity behavior ( not verdict) is not in doubt.

The expert for the prosecution would simply have to support a theory that the defendant has the capacity to understand that what they did was wrong.
I keep going back to the burden of proof in insanity plea is on the defense, the prosecutor should be able to discredit the basis of the claims, without the medical facts of the psychiatric testimony.

OK. if this is how they do it , fine, my p.o.v. is exausted.
 
What do you think would make them throw me out?
If I was a defense attorney, and you were honest on your questionnaire, I would never choose a conservative white guy to be on my jury. Though YOUR Buddhist religion MIGHT throw me off, Otherwise you would be a pre-emptory strike.
 
If I was a defense attorney, and you were honest on your questionnaire, I would never choose a conservative white guy to be on my jury. Though YOUR Buddhist religion MIGHT throw me off, Otherwise you would be a pre-emptory strike.

Lol...that's about all you would have to choose from around here....conservative white guys, conservative white gals, conservative black guys, conservative black gals, even most of the Hispanics around here are conservative...and the rest are illegals so they wouldn't be in the jury pool.
 
Psychosis does not always incapacitate someone. If his delusions were serious, he might have planned all this in reaction to them.

That said, I would rather see him get life in solitary confinement.

one is not deemed incapable of standing trial simply because he has delusions.....he must be unable to comprehend what he is doing....a person who willingly takes life but did it because he thought the victim was Satan's sock puppet will likely still stand trial.....you pretty much have to be to the point where you didn't comprehend that pulling the trigger was going to result in someone dying...
 
Back
Top