I want to know how she was competent to choose Means as an attorney for the new charges when she is incompetent to listen to the charges. Get to pick and choose when you are competent? Maybe it is a moron thing.
Good News, Idaho does not have a "Not Guilty by reason of insanity" law on its books (one of 5 states that do not). The ruling now is that she will be investigated to see if she is competent to understand the charges against her and to participate in her defense. If it is found she is not, then she will be required by court order to undergo treatment (drugs) until she is competent to stand trial. She never gets out of the trail. She either spends the rest of her life in a mental facility, or gets better and then goes to trial.
Yes, whether she understands the charges and can participate in her defense is the usual standard.
On a different point I once happened to meet a professor who taught criminal law. We discussed this topic, and he told me that life in a mental facility is substantially worse than life in prison. He said, with a visible shiver, that no defense lawyer would ever want his client to end up there.
> He said, with a visible shiver, > that no defense lawyer would > ever want his client to end up > there.
I for one find it hard to believe that every criminal defense attorney cares that deeply about his or HER clients; I suspect that the thing they'd all share in common is getting paid before the trial date.
I wonder if "A bonus if I'm found Not Guilty" is ever negotiated into the deal?
elderolddog Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I for one find it hard to believe that every > criminal defense attorney cares that deeply about > his or HER clients; I suspect that the thing > they'd all share in common is getting paid before > the trial date.
I'm sure you are right. A criminal law professor probably feels more deeply about justice than the average defense attorney.
--------------- > I wonder if "A bonus if I'm found Not Guilty" is > ever negotiated into the deal?
Such a bonus is always included in the deal since the attorney won't get much future business if his or HER past and current clients all end up manufacturing license plates.
I came across on YouTube a very interesting interview of Zac Cox by reporter Jason Lum.
Zac Cox is Lori's nephew, the son of her brother Adam Cox, the DJ.
Zac lived with Lori and Charles, and then with his grandparents, Janice and Barry, when Lori was becoming more and more obsessed with Chad and his end-of-the world theories. He tells what it was like living with Lori, about Lori's change in personality, and what Charles suffered before his death. The whole family was against him. Zac was close to Tylee and JJ during this time.
I wish I had a link, but just google Zac Cox, interview, YouTube and you should find it. Zac gives a good account of Lori's family, and the way they interacted with each other.
It is Zac's view that Lori was mentally competent then and she is mentally competent now.
God save us from all end-of-the-worlders, because they will not have any scruples about ending your world.
First, there is no insanity defense. The state legislature removed that from the books decades ago. But that's not the end of the story. The judge can decide that a defendant is mentally incapable of forming the intent to commit the crime and on that basis find that person innocent--which is close to a normal insanity defense.
Regarding competency to stand trial, the standard is pretty common: does the defendant understand the basics of the legal system, does she understand the charges, and can she participate in her own defense? That's a very low standard. Charles Manson was sane enough, as were the Laffertys and Son of Sam.
So either ID expects an unusually high level of competence as a precondition for trial or Vallow is drooling mad. I haven't seen that. Usually, awareness of the need to hide the bodies and to run away from law enforcement is enough to show competence.