After several weeks of investigation and research of the evidence, I believe AJ was prepared to enter what he believed was the best plea for his client at Tuesday's scheduled arraignment, but was stopped in his tracks.
IMO, a prudent defense team here will not want a bifurcated trial (dual plea) where the question of NR's guilt, and the question of his sanity are dealt with in two separate proceedings.
I think AJ wanted to enter a single plea of "not guilty by reason of insanity," where the court
proceeds directly to the sanity trial, and there is
no separate trial on guilt or innocence. In other words, the defense concedes/stipulates that NR was responsible for the death of the victims but was insane when the offenses were committed. Ultimately, I think NR rejected the NGRI defense proposed by AJ -- perhaps because he's in complete denial that he murdered his parents.
Just the same -- what best could stop the flow of financial assistance to NR from family and friends than for NR to refuse the advice of counsel, and/or to accept responsibility for his horrific act against his parents. JMO
References:
The plea of insanity is thus necessarily one of "confession and avoidance." (People v. Troche (1928) 206 Cal. 35, 44 [273 P. 767].) "Commission of the overt act is conceded" but punishment is avoided "upon the sole ground that at the time the overt act was committed the defendant was [insane]." (People v. Wells (1949) 33 Cal.2d 330, 349-350 [202 P.2d 53], italics in original.)
The "sanity trial is but a part of the same criminal proceeding as the guilt phase" (People v. Flores (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 118, 122 [127 Cal.Rptr. 230]) but differs procedurally from the guilt phase of trial "in that the issue is confined to sanity and the burden is upon the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was insane at the time of the offense" (id. at p. 121). As in the determination of guilt, the verdict of the jury must be unanimous. (People v. Troche, supra, 206 Cal. at p. 44.)
https://youtu.be/2EHI69bMq4A Under California's insanity defense, you cannot be convicted of a crime if you were legally insane when you committed it.1 You are considered legally insane if you either: Did not understand the nature of your criminal act, OR Did not understand that what you were...
www.shouselaw.com
