Ravenwood - 10/19/03 09:45 AM
Dennis Miller is none too happy about Malvo's insanity defense in the case of the "D.C. Sniper".
We're about to enter the morass of the D.C. sniper trial, a trial in which one of the snipers, John Lee Malvo, told an interrogator that he shot a sixth grader in the chest to see how the chief of police would react on the nightly news. Now he's going to plead insanity. Well you know something? That's just not good enough, pal.I share Miller's frustrations, but I don't share his belief that defense lawyers should walk away from the case, or are somehow sleazy for defending this bum. Sure, from the perspective of the defense, Malvo deserves representation in court and someone looking out for his interests.Why does insanity always get you off the hook? It's like a "Get Out Of Reality Free Card." All you have to do is say you were a little cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs, and all of a sudden caring people with zero regard for the victim's loved ones will convert some of their Delta miles and fly in to attend an anti-death penalty candlelight-vigil in your honor. All of a sudden people are feeling sorry for you, because you killed someone, because you were crazy! Of course you were crazy! That's the point!
At the same time, it is that defense attorney's responsibility to make sure the trial is not a complete railroading. His job includes making sure that the prosecution does their job in proving the case. Any confession that Malvo gives should be a true confession and not the one the cops beat or coerce out of him. If the defense attorney doesn't put up a valid defense, the case could be overturned on appeal. Even worse, it would really be a travesty of justice if the guy makes it all the way to execution without having had a truly fair trial. While I wholeheartedly believe in capital punishment, I also believe in making damned sure the government does their job in proving this guy is worthy of capital punishment. Anything less would be dictatorial.
You are correct, and I'm sure you saw the insanity plea coming.
hln
Posted by: hln at October 19, 2003 10:53 AMIf you don't have a defense, you can't have a trial that's a trial. Somebody has to represent the best interests of the accused, and you have to convict in spite of it.
A separate issue is what sort of babble influences the decision. You'd ideally have a jury of Koehler Method dog trainers. You don't correct the dog to deter other dogs, you correct him to make clear what the rule is. In this case, it's ``no shooting people.''
Posted by: Ron Hardin at October 19, 2003 8:00 PMThe general legal theory of insanity is that the person cannot be held morally or legally responsible for his actions, because he's too whacko to know right from wrong.
The practical disadvantage with this defense in a case like this is, the jury is quite likely to agree the guy is nuts, and committed the crime because he is nuts... and therefore they want him fried ASAP because he'll do it again if he gets a chance. If they know anything at all about mental institutions, they know there's no guarantee that the guy won't someday be let out by some shrink who probably ought to be on the other side of the bars. So to make the insanity plea work, you've got to convince them (1) that the guy doesn't know daylight from darkness, let alone right from wrong, (2) the law clearly requires a not-guilty by reason of insanity in this case, (3) and they've got to follow the law rather than their own sense of public safety.
Or there's the other tactic - get the jury's sympathy, and then they might pick go for insanity even though it's doubtful as a matter of fact, as a way of getting the poor bastard out of what he's got coming under the law. So I'm sure you'll hear lots from the defense as to how the older man influenced this "naive young man" and led him into evil... Might work if they can get a jury with 8 black women, 4 muslims, and 12 knee-jerk liberals.
Posted by: markm at October 21, 2003 10:34 PMThat's going to be hard to do in Pat Robertson's Virginia Beach.
Posted by: Ravenwood at October 21, 2003 10:39 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
