So I'm trying to organize my thoughts on the insanity defense and was looking for some feedback. If you are looking to get evidence in on a mental abnormality (not insane by definition), there are two basic rules:
D can not say that "because I have a mental abnormality, I am unable to lack specific intent." This would be inadmissible
However D can introduce evidence of his mental abnormality and show along with his actions, that at the time of the murder he lacked specific intent because of his mental abnormality. Which would be an affirmative defense
This sound right?
(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
1 post • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher and 1 guest