Nanny Faces Tough Insanity Test: Did She Know Killing Was Wrong?
"Question for Jurors: Did Nanny Know Killing Was Wrong?
As the murder trial of a nanny who fatally stabbed two small children in her care entered its fourth week on Monday, the jury has begun wrestling with one of the most controversial, misunderstood and hard-to-grasp concepts in criminal law: the insanity defense.
The outcome of the trial will depend largely on how the jury interprets evidence now being presented about Yoselyn Ortegas mental health and her state of mind when she used a kitchen knife to slay 2-year-old Leo Krim and his 6-year-old sister, Lucia, in October 2012.
Ms. Ortegas lawyer, Valerie Van Leer-Greenberg, said in her opening statement that insanity was the only possible explanation for the grisly killings. I will show that the lack of motive in this case is the hallmark of a mentally ill defender, she said.
But if history is a guide, she faces an uphill battle persuading the jury. In New York, defendants must prove not just that they have a mental illness, but that the illness prevented them from understanding the consequences of their actions or that what they did was wrong.
The problem is, being crazy isnt enough, said one defense lawyer, Martin Goldberg. You have to show your client, as a result of a mental disease, lacked the ability to know right and wrong...."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/nyregion/nanny-murder-trial-insanity-defense.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Daniel M'Naughten to John Hinckley
A Brief History of the Insanity Defense
"...THE "RIGHT/WRONG" M'NAUGHTEN TEST
The guidelines for evaluating the criminal responsibility for defendants claiming to be insane were codified in the British courts in the case of Daniel M'Naughten in 1843. M'Naughten was a Scottish woodcutter who murdered the secretary to the prime minister, Sir Robert Peel, in a botched attempt to assassinate the prime minister himself. M'Naughten apparently believed that the prime minister was the architect of the myriad of personal and financial misfortunes that had befallen him. During his trial, nine witnesses testified to the fact that he was insane, and the jury acquitted him, finding him "not guilty by reason of insanity."
Queen Victoria was not at all pleased with this outcome, and requested that the House of Lords review the verdict with a panel of judges. The judges reversed the jury verdict, and the formulation that emerged from their review -- that a defendant should not be held responsible for his actions if he could not tell that his actions were wrong at the time he committed them -- became the basis of the law governing legal responsibility in cases of insanity in England. The M'Naughten rule was embraced with almost no modification by American courts and legislatures for more than 100 years, until the mid-20th century. In 1998, 25 states plus the District of Columbia still used versions of the M'Naughten rule to test for legal insanity...."
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/history.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..).
