- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 4,905
- Reaction score
- 1,578
- Location
- The darkside of the moon
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
James Holmes the individual doesn't have to prove anything or say anything - his attorneys do.
James Holmes doesn't have to take the stand or say a word to anyone about why he did what he allegedly did.
true, but if they want to convince a jury he is insane he will have to speak to the shrinks. he can stay silent about it, but that is not going to get him looking insane. he was not a crazy mute before it happened, so that whole idea would get destroyed by the prosecution. Silence is not going to help him, and it would actually show he knows what he is doing. You are arguing a completely different issue which has much different legal ramifications. If you commit a crime and are not pleading insanity as a reason why you did it then silence is a great thing for reasonable doubt. he is claiming something, and obscuring that claim does him no good, or the defense if you want to be technical about it. The defense wants him to be declared insane at the time. the state has the opportunity to question that claim. This is court, not an interrogation. if you make an argument in court the opponent has the opportunity to bring up evidence to invalidate it. to make a claim is not invoking your fifth amendment. It is inherently making a statement which the prosecution can attack.
It's not weather Holmes defense is viable it's weather or not it's relevant and that is for a jury to decide.
yes, and that means the jury will be presented with counter arguments to the defendant's state of mind. You don't just get to make a claim on either side and have it not responded to. His defense team will have their own opportunity to present their evidence he was insane at the time. His rights are not being violated by allowing the prosecution to argue against that claim. that is what actually goes on in court. Since he is not being compelled to plead guilty, which is in fact what he is doing if he goes with insanity, then your entire argument becomes void. he is not claiming innocence with a insanity plea, and that is the very simple part you are missing here.