dm92
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2017
- Messages
- 987
- Reaction score
- 3,853
Edit= Jonathan Sorensen - Wikipedia
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bsl.2370130105
I'm assuming that the insanity bit for the penalty phase is back on the table because the evidence they possess is so graphic that it will lead to no other conclusion during the trial- only a madman could have done this.
Thus it rolls int0 penalty phase.
Therefore it's on and our boy has successfully avoided Govt shrink who would have blown his cover apart in 5 minutes flat.
Document is highly loaded with sarcasm. Judge cannot miss it.
Are they attempting to get themselves disbarred as someone else asked recently?
No. Sorensen's testimony will have to do with the aggravator of "future dangerousness;" Basically if I understand it, he will argue that the BOP has guidelines and procedures in place that will adequately control him and monitor his behavior such that he won't represent a threat to fellow inmates, and that escape is unlikely, so he won't represent a future danger to the community at large. Basically, life imprisonment and the functionality of the prison system will mitigate any aggravation of future dangerousness.
Zoline's testimony is more of an issue in regard to mental illness and putting it back on the table. My guess is that they will argue that Zoline's testimony won't be about BC's mental health, but will be that the UIUC Counseling Center dropped the ball when evaluating him, and that BC seeking their help will be an indication that he was worried about what he might do and was trying to do the right thing to make sure he didn't do something bad; and that by seeking help, it will show that he did not want to hurt anyone and was trying to do the right thing -and as such this should be mitigating evidence in his favor.