Report comment

Report comment

several pages of notes in a moderately successful attempt to write English in an ideographic script. Unfortunately, I can’t remember what the ideographs mean well enough to decode the content.

This… must be some new meaning of the word “successful” with which I was not previously acquainted.

Report comment

Report comment

“Historically, the omission of “not” was considered quite a common mistake. Until 2004, for example, the style guide of the Associated Press advised using “innocent” instead of “not guilty” to describe acquittals, so as to prevent this eventuality.”

This is wonderful. Hooray for the Associated Press until 2004 (when they changed it for boring legal accuracy reasons and merely urged caution not to drop the “not”).

Report comment

Report comment

Report comment

Report comment

1. Some states tell juries what will happen to those found insane, then tell the jury not to worry about it. (Juries aren’t supposed to consider penalty or punishment.) California tells juries what will happen upon a defense or prosecution request (CALCRIM 3450. http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3450.html)

2. Different states have different insanity rules. Even hallucinations may not be sufficient to make an insanity defense (“Victim was an angry witch who shorted me on my meth, so I shot her.” In fact, victim is a six-year-old girl. You might not succeed there, because shooting your dealer is still not nice.)

Direct agreement notes:

3. My sense is that most forensic psychologists are good at determining malingering and its degrees, FWIW. So I think that’s right.

4. Insanity’s a tough go. Legal insanity is way different than, “crazy bastard.” Jurors are none to keen on it generally; all of the successful insanity defenses I’ve seen involved the prosecution conceding the point.

–JRM

Report comment

Report comment