From witness testimony, seems to me that Tolini loves to cite from articles favorable to his thinking. I think Dr. Torres said at one point today that he's sent her around 18!
Today, Tolini also challenged Torres on how state hospital mental health experts are biased. First, these experts are not
hired by either the prosecution or defense-- they are state employees appointed by Court Order who are supposed to be neutral parties with objective opinions.
I'd say Tolini missed an article!
9NEWS Psychologist Dr. Max Wachtel explains the Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity Plea.
www.9news.com
The first test of insanity is listed in C.R.S. § 16-8-101.5(1)(a): "A person who is so
diseased or defective in mind at the time of the commission of the act as to be
incapable of distinguishing right from wrong with respect to the act is not accountable" (meaning the person is NGRI).
The diseased or defective mind cannot be caused by "moral obliquity or moral depravity"(these terms are typically defined as having a personality disorder such as Antisocial Personality Disorder or Psychopathy).
The diseased or defective mind cannot be caused by "passion growing out of anger, revenge, hatred, or other motives and kindred evil conditions" (This is considered a "crime of passion"). [IMO, fits LS completely].
A diseased or defective in mind cannot be caused by "antisocial behavior or repeated criminal conduct" (C.R.S. § 16-8-101.5(2)(b)).
The second test of insanity is listed in C.R.S. 16-8-101.5(1)(b): "A person who suffered from a
condition of mind caused by
mental disease or defect that prevented the person from forming
a culpable mental state that is an essential element of a crime charged" cannot be held criminally responsible (meaning the person is NGRI).
This used to be a completely separate issue but was combined with the first sanity test listed in #2 in 1995. If you hear an attorney or psychologist talking about a
mental condition evaluation, they are talking about examining this test of insanity.
[..]
A person found to be NGRI is immediately remanded to the Department of Human Services (The Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo, or CMHIP, or 'Sim-Hip') for treatment. The person can be kept at Pueblo indefinitely (anywhere from one day to the rest of his life).
The defendant must have a release hearing when the hospital's opinion is that he is no longer a danger to himself, others, or the community for the foreseeable future (C.R.S. § 16-8-116).
[..]
I have conducted sanity/mental condition evaluations in Colorado. I have testified as an expert in these cases for both the prosecution and defense.
Here are a few issues I have learned over the years:
The sanity evaluators from the mental hospital in Pueblo were not hired by the prosecution or the defense. They are supposed to be neutral parties with objective opinions.
Depending on the opinions of the Pueblo evaluators, their testimony will be either pro-prosecution (i.e. they think the accused is sane) or pro-defense (i.e. they think the accused is insane).
The prosecution will almost definitely call experts of their own who have analyzed the Pueblo reports and who will say the accused is sane. They will also try to lessen the credibility of any experts who are friendly to the defense. This will be difficult to do, since some of those friendly defense experts will not testify until after the prosecution rests its case.
The prosecution will not have any privately-hired experts who directly evaluated the accused—they are not legally entitled to have access to the defendant in that way.
The defense likely has at least one private expert who has met with the defendant and conducted a private sanity evaluation. In fact, there have probably been several private sanity evaluations—all defense experts slated to testify will say the accused is insane.
The defense may have hired private evaluators who thought the accused is sane. If that is the case, we will never hear from those experts. The defense is not required to disclose that information to anyone. This is why it is a guarantee that any expert witnesses they call will be friendly to the defense.
The prosecution will likely request to call rebuttal expert witnesses to directly rebut testimony from defense experts called during the defense's case. This would happen after the defense rests. These witnesses would only be allowed to rebut testimony offered under direct examination—no new evidence could be admitted at that point in the trial.
If the prosecution calls rebuttal witnesses, the defense can ask the judge to allow them to also call rebuttal witnesses to rebut the prosecution's rebuttal witnesses. This is called surrebuttal.
