But the prosecutor can cross examine the defence's psyche's?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.
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.But the prosecutor can cross examine the defence's psyche's?
It doesn't make sense. Both sides should have access to expert testimony.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.
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.The prosecutor doesn't have to show state of mind -the defense does, the prosecutor already has the acts documented.
Because the Defense has to make it's case that insanity overcomes the act/preplanning, ect.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.
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.It doesn't make sense. Both sides should have access to expert testimony
.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 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
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?
The prosecution would be calling a psychiatrist (expert) as to the defendents state of mind. What purpose? The prosecution already has the acceptence of guiltThat only one side is allowed to have it clearly works in the favor of one side of the case
There would be no requirement for calling an expert, it isn't like you'd have to.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.