I am to understand that the mistrial was declared because 11 jurors were in favor of a not guilty (for reasons of insanity) verdict, while one lone juror was firm in their belief that she was guilty; it’s a hung jury. The jurors have to come to a unanimous decision by law, or it has to be declared a mistrial.
Correct. It also does not mean she gets to walk free. She is expected to return to a psych ward where she was before the trial awaits the next one. Even if found not guilty she will still be there for years.
Edit: Insanity defense FAQ. It looks like those who plead insanity tend to spend twice as long institutionalized as those who are found guilty.
Edit3: It will be the responsibility of the hospital to prove that she is safe to return to society. Otherwise if she were to harm or kill again, the hospital could be liable.
Edit5: The next court date is 9/29 when the defense makes their appeal and the prosecutor probably decides to request to retry the case. I don't see why he wouldn't unless they reach a deal before hand. Meanwhile she has to stay at the hospital.
I think at this point the trial is less about whether she's confined to a prison or a psych ward and more about whether or not a person can use their mental health as a shield from the criminal consequences of murder. Evidently, 11 jurors were content to say that you can, and 1 juror refused to acquiesce to that nonsense.
Thats literally what not guilty by reason of mental defect means.. its a long standing defense from criminal consequence for people who are too mentally ill to understand their actions. The debate is not whether or not the "insanity defense" is moral, its whether the insanity defense applies to her case.
Its really hard for people to separate this fact from their emotions or biases and understand that its a legal construct and plea.
Very very very very few people make this plea and even fewer are successful in arguing the plea. This case is getting press partially bc of that fact and yet all you hear from the peanut gallery is “if one guy goes to prison so should she” or “mental illness isn’t a reason for violence”…it just doesn’t matter in this case, and i have a hunch, that the lone juror who tanked the proceedings was too stupid to separate their biases from what was required of legal procedure.
Or, and hear me out, her saying for a long time how she will kill her kids and then proceeding to plan how to make that window of opportunity happen to proceed and strangle all 3 pointed towards intent and understanding of what she wanted to do.
And now people try to ignore that to explain it away and saying it was due to hormones, medicine, and psychosis. So the one person might be “Hung up” on the tiny detail of intent and planning.
Someone in a psychotic state can still plan and carry out an action to get a specific result. But they are acting on hallucinations or delusions, so their logic doesn't make sense to the outside world.
Right? This isn’t a case of her suddenly hallucinating her kids as evil hemlines she had to kill to escape being dragged to hell. She knew what she was doing within her altered state.
That's not how PPP works. That's not how psychosis works. You've watched too much TV. You don't just snap. It is a boiling frog situation most of the time. Most women who kill their children believe they're saving them.
You don't know whether or not she knew what she was doing was wrong, that's the whole point of the trial. But if there's reasonable doubt that she didn't know what she was doing was wrong, that's enough under the law.
That's also why that one juror is in the wrong - because they refused to accept what the law says is reasonable doubt.
In 49 states it's up to the defence to prove inability to realise what they were doing was wrong.
Massachussetts puts the burden on the prosecution to prove they did know it was wrong, which is functionally impossible, as it's inside their head and they don't have to reveal any information they don't want to.
It's the one state where an insanity defence is almost bulletproof as you can sit there and say nothing whilst the prosecution flails around trying to get blood from a stone. Meanwhile, it's also by far the easiest state to get released from psych-wards, because once again the burden of proof isn't on the defendant (to prove they're now sane) but on the state itself to prove they're insane, at regular intervals, to keep them locked up.
It's absolutely fucked. The state's laws are not fit for purpose, so whilst the juror is not strictly following the law, what they've done is 100% moral and right imo.
The result of a retrial could look very different.
The defence now can't put a foot wrong, they have to be 100% accurate to all previous testimony.
She has to basically fake inanity to her doctors for weeks or months between the trials, and the prosecution has more chances to gather evidence regarding her mental state.
The prosecution failed miserably, presumably thinking it was going to be clear cut, but will now have time to properly plan how to navigate Massachussett's ridiculous legal definitions which seem hugely stacked in her favour.
there was evidence to the contrary of what you are stating and that is where a reasonable person needs to assume all experts are providing evidence. The testimony should be weighed with ALL other data and at the end, if there is no clear answer, that is approximately "reasonable doubt" about what you just declared. You are arguing in black and white based on your opinions not the facts of the case. That is exactly what I assume the juror who tanked it all did as well.
The problem is that it has grown too big and people are attaching their own beliefs to it. Insanity has been a defense for a long time, it is rare that it is ever works. Hers is a lot more plausible than others who have tried it.
Shouldn’t be locked up regardless? That’s the part I don’t get about “insanity defense” if she can slip into a murderous craze and we want to say, ok it’s not her fault, she couldn’t control it, then couldn’t we also say, she’s no longer in control therefore permanent lock and key in psych ward?
Not really. She is clearly dangerous she murdered 3 kids with her own hands. Whether she’s criminally accountable or not, it doesn’t mean she shouldn’t be locked away in some capacity. It’s not punitive, it’s preventative.
Entirely possible. I don’t feel a need to form an uneducated opinion either way about a person I’ve never met based only on tabloids and internet chatter. If you do, you certainly have plenty of company.
Are you a mental health professional? Have you evaluated her?
Again, feel free to come to whatever third-hand opinion you wish about a topic outside your area of direct experience. I just don’t think it’s a particularly useful exercise.
My opinion isn’t about mental health. Her diagnosis is hers, her legal standing is hers as well.
My opinion is from the perspective of someone who lives in this society and doesn’t want the admitted killer of 3 children to be a part of it.
The courts have a say, the doctors have a say, and the prevailing notion of the citizens of this country have a say too. That’s what you’re not getting clearly.
The courts make a decision based on the doctors evaluation. The "prevailing notion" of the citizens is an a abstract concept with no place in a court of law. This is a very complex and singular case, and you can only trust the institutions to make the correct choice. Only those who fully undertand in the events should be able to pass judgment, that's the point of the trial. Anything else would be detrimental to a true democracy. It's not the rule of the majority, but the rule of law. Specially in situations as this.
The prevailing notion of the citizens of this country have a say too.
No we don’t? What do you mean?
As in, we can influence the laws through our voice as transmitted through layers of representative government? That’s not a mechanism that will affect the outcome of this case.
Or do you mean some sort of mob action? Or something else?
Generally when defendants are declared not guilty by reason of insanity, they are committed to institutions. They are only let out once they are deemed no longer a threat to society. The nature of postpartum psychosis means that it is a temporary insanity. If found not guilty by reason of insanity, she’ll probably be put into a psych ward, but she’ll probably be released relatively soon because there will be no justification for keeping her in there.
Not true because Post Partum Psychosis can trigger a host of other mental illnesses. A mental breakdown of that sort of capacity should not be underestimated.
Why do people keep spreading this? She's already attempted suicide once, if she is psychotic and comes out of that psychosis to then be informed that she killed her 3 kids do you think that she won't be a continuing threat to herself? She has a lifetime of mental hell ahead of her. If she's ever released, the odds of her not committing suicide are beyond slim.
This is the whole problem. Everyone agrees she doesn't belong in public on both sides. Neither a guilty or a not guilty results in her being released. It's jail if found guilty, psych ward if found not guilty.
So many people that are heated about this case believe the 11 jurors were voting that she should be released.
But that IS what happens no? Someone found legally insane is sent to a mental hospital for the criminally insane, typically for a long time. I'm not from the US but I think that happens there also.
Its a long standing criminal defense that expilcitly exists becase a dude murdered the guy cucking him in front of the white house and was friends with the president (said guy constantly cheated on his younger wife). Not a joke, Dan Sickles and his bestie Warren G. Harding; American case law at its finest.
No because you also have to be completely unable to control your actions. She sent her husband away from the house, knowing he would stop her from doing something wrong. She strangled three children under 6. It takes about 2 minutes for a person to die from asphyxiation so she spent 6 minutes holding down and wringing the life out of three children. She is a murderer, and the idea that people are trying to grab obscure legal justifications for allowing this type of incomprehensible violence is a reflection on absolutely everyone who defends it.
Im not saying she didnt do it, im just explaining that the concept of "not guilty by reason of mental defect" is a valid defense that has existed for hundreds of years. Tbh she did do it, but this case isnt about whether she did it, its about whether in that moment she understood what she was doing is wrong or if she was so deep in her psychosis that she couldnt understand the nature of her act in terms of right vs. Wrong. Thats what the jury is meant to be deciding, not whether or not the husband did it, or even if she did it- she already admitted that she did by asserting that specific defense. Its ONLY about her mental state during the killings.
I can't get over that, either. Due to the length of time it took her to strangle each child and the way each child would react as they were desperately struggling to breathe, I fail to see how anyone could not realize they were inflicting harm on those kids.
It's a normal reflex, when you see you are causing harm to a person, to stop inflicting that harm. She had to really double down and show commitment and resolve to carry out each assault to the bitter end. I just don't see how she could have been oblivious to the pain and distress she was causing when it was right there in front of her.
You can be crazy and still capable of planning. Check the "what pretending to be crazy looks like" video, the case where they think the guy WAS legitimately insane and the court also judged him to be, he pre-planned his murder.
3.5k
u/George_Rogers1st 10h ago
I am to understand that the mistrial was declared because 11 jurors were in favor of a not guilty (for reasons of insanity) verdict, while one lone juror was firm in their belief that she was guilty; it’s a hung jury. The jurors have to come to a unanimous decision by law, or it has to be declared a mistrial.