Originally Posted by jawbone
The key here is that Mass. is different than anywhere else on a Not Guilty by Insanity defense than anywhere else. Everywhere else you first have to say you are guilty and then prove that you were so loony that you didn't know what you were doing was wrong (known as the McNaughton Rule). The Burden of Proof is on the defendant to prove they didn't know what they were doing was wrong. This is a dangerous move for two reasons, first the jury seldom pays attention to anything beyond the admission of guilt which is the start of this defense. Secondly, the Burden of proving you didn't know what you were doing was wrong is a tough hill to climb.

Now, according to Paul Mauro, Mass. is different because they are the only state that with a Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity defense, the Burden of Proof is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant knew what they were doing was wrong. How can you prove that without being a mind reader?

For this reason, I think she will be found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity. She will then be reevaluated and probably be found OK now and turned loose.

For those that think someone else did it, realize that by using the Not Guilty by reason of Insanity Defense, she is admitting that she did it, but that she was crazy at that time. With that defense, you can't claim it and that someone else did it both.

I saw the same interview today. Also wanted to point out what else was said. Supposedly many of the statements she made about her psychosis wet in retrospect. Wasn’t mentioned during sessions with psychs

“Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it.” ― Ronald Reagan