Replies

$50 says she's found insane, and rightfully so. Which would preclude execution in Texas.

Not so fast.

Revision of Texas' Insanity Defense
The Andrea Yates trial put the spotlight on Texas' insanity defense. Texas has some of the nation's most stringent requirements for the use of the insanity defense. The defense must prove not only that an individual has a serious mental illness, but also that the individual did not know that his or her conduct was wrong in the eyes of the law. This was how Texas law permitted jurors to find Andrea Yates guilty, despite past treatment for postpartum depression and psychosis, four hospitalizations, and two suicide attempts. Andrea Yates was found guilty because in her testimony to the police, she stated that she knew the criminal justice system would punish her for her actions, implying that she knew they were wrong in the eyes of the law. ...
The Texas statute ... requires the jury to focus not on whether a person is delusional, but on whether the defendant from knew right from wrong at the time of the crime. In Texas, it is not enough for a judge or jury to believe that a defendant had a severe mental illness that included strong delusions - there also has to be a finding that the defendant was unable to know the difference between right and wrong. ...
In the past, the Texas insanity defense allowed acquittal for defendants, ... even when they knew their actions were wrong. However, Texas, like many states, revised its insanity statute ... 1981. ... Five states have abolished the insanity defense completely. The resulting changes have made the insanity defense extremely difficult to employ, even in the cases of severely ill individuals. As a result, despite popular belief, the insanity defense is used in less that 1 percent of criminal cases. ...

Texas law also creates an additional burden for the use of the insanity defense. Attorneys for the defense, courts and prosecutors are prohibited from informing any juror or prospective juror of the consequences to the defendant if a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity is returned. ... While a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity is a full acquittal of charges, in cases where the court finds that there was a threat of serious bodily injury to anyone, then the criminal court retains jurisdiction and must order the defendant be committed to a maximum security unit within the Texas Department of Mental Retardation. The criminal court retains jurisdiction for a period of time as long as the maximum term provided by the law for the crime committed.