re: Clancy trial verdict predictions

quote:

---

This issue is how NGRI is set up in Massachusetts. Yates is in Texas. It's a massive difference.

---

what’s the difference?

It’s pretty much the same. You can actually look this up.

quote:

---

what’s the difference?

---

The same three letters do not mean the laws are identical.

In Texas, Yates had to prove that a severe mental disease left her unable to know that killing her children was wrong. Being mentally ill or unable to control herself wasn’t enough if she still understood that her actions were wrong.

Please do. Because I actually looked them up, and they are not the same.

Texas: The defendant must prove that a severe mental disease left her unable to know her conduct was wrong.

Massachusetts: The defendant can be found NGRI if she lacked the substantial capacity either to appreciate that her conduct was wrong or to conform her conduct to the law.

That second part is completely absent from Texas law. The burden is also different. Insanity is an affirmative defense in Texas. In Massachusetts, once it’s properly raised, the Commonwealth must prove criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt.

Those are plainly different standards. But sure, post whatever you found.

quote:

---

Prosecutions have a better chance at retrials than defense when they decide to retrial.

---

If she's found not guilty by reason of insanity, there can't be a retrial

Hmmm. If your point is simply that both states can commit someone after an NGRI verdict and later release them if they’re no longer mentally ill or dangerous, then yes, broadly speaking....that part is similar.

But the processes still aren’t exactly identical. Massachusetts begins with an evaluation, a possible six-month commitment, and then annual recommitments. In Texas, the court can retain jurisdiction over someone acquitted of dangerous conduct for up to the maximum possible sentence and controls any discharge or conditional release.

More importantly, the legal standard for reaching NGRI is different, which is fairly relevant when we’re discussing whether Clancy will be convicted in the first place.

So yes, the general idea after the verdict is similar. The actual standards and procedures are not the same.

quote:

---

If she's found not guilty by reason of insanity, there can't be a retrial

---

They're talking about a mistrial... which allows for another trial... which favors the prosecution

quote:

---

They're talking about a mistrial... which allows for another trial... which favors the prosecution

---

OK, I was responding to the reply that someone had made that the prosecution should let them replace the one juror that is holding out and take their chances on a retrial. If they remove the one holdout, whom we probably think is the only guilty vote left, then she would be most likely found not guilty. If that's the case, there would be no retrial.

Wait she is paralyzed?

Yes. I understand. They are not identical. But in both states a judge, a prosecutor, doctors, they’re all involved into whether or not they are released. The time frames are pretty close to the same. They’re both decided every year. Both states involve the courts and the doctors.

I understand they’re not identical. I’m not here to argue whether or not they are identical. I’m here to tell you that they pretty much the same. A prosecutor is not going to let her just walk out the door in a year. People need to understand this.