A dindu goes berserk in a crowded public place and starts shooting over scuffed shoes. His medical record will surely show a history of psychiatric problems and inadequate care from an overburded system. Is he not criminally responsible?

If Clancy isn't criminally responsible then 90% of the incarcerated people in Mass aren't responsible either.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2/#50116691)

To cite Reddington's closing argument, how did we go from this to this? Wherein holds up a photo of the happy family and then holds up a photo of the crime scene.

What makes Lindsay sympathetic as a defendant is that by all accounts and through a mountain of testimony, she was a nice normal person beloved by everyone around her. The dindu with mental illness has been bashing people's heads in since elementary school. Lindsay wasn't. She was a totally normal person and loving mother who went through a massive personality change having to do with the realignment of neurochemicals in the postpartum period and their interaction with the prescriptions such as giving a bipolar person SSRIs that specifically exacerbated her condition.

If Judge Judy snapped at her advanced age and went on a killing spree no one would think she was herself. No one would think well this model citizen with a lifetime of public service would just turn on a dime and become somebody else. Turns out that's what happened with Lindsay. It wasn't necessarily a decision process that was all thought out and she knew what she was doing. The argument is that she had a delusional, psychotic break with reality from the person she was before, there were no warning signs, she was commendable her whole life up to a point where the chemical balance went off the rails. That's the difference.

Believe whatever you want to believe but the defense argument resonates with 50-75% of people who learn about the trial. She still might be guilty but I don't think the next jury, or any jury, will throw out the defense argument completely. It's strong because it's strong.

Every defendant who can invoke the insanity plea, does. Most do not get 11/12 jurors to buy it. I encourage you to look into the evidence.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2/#50116711)

Or is she back to being sane?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2/#50116745)

We all have a little Gell-Mann when it comes to topics outside of our wheelhouse. Remember all the times I got pwnd on tort law and M&A shit? We all have blind spots. I have no idea why I grasp criminal law easily but don't have a clue about C Corps inter alia.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2/#50116646)

Just lock her up in a mental health jail for life. Who cares about the semantics this is hte obvious outcome.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2/#50116707)

The state on the other hand made a half dozen claims they failed to prove such as that she was a horrible, manipulative person, or that she faked her suicide, or that her motive was not wanting to go back to work as a delivery nurse. The state way overshot what they were trying to prove. And I think the defense got in plenty of doubt.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900727&forum_id=2/#50116742)