“they should be the ones to prove what her mental state was”
How? They provided evidence, to include mental health people who had treated her the day prior to the killings - and the jury rejected it. This was jury nullification of prison for women who murder their kids...
In essence, the argument I’ve encountered on line is “No sane woman would murder her kids, so she must be insane!” If you ask them about MEN who murder their kids, they reply, “Men always murder kids!” FWIW, the statistics show mothers murder young kids as often or MORE than men, while men murder more teens. But facts are not important to liberals, so how do you have a fair trial in a place like Boston or NYC?
I call it the Trump Dilemma - how do you have a worthwhile jury trial where most of the people on the jury are liberals who reject objective truth?
@Mr Rogers
Again if the state believes “the prosecution [is going] all in, they [the defense] should [in actuality] be the ones to prove what her mental state was” [as is the case in almost all states.
The prosecution can bring a plethora of evidence concerning the husband’s errand he was sent out, what Clancy did or did not do online for mapping, distance, time of travel, etc, and the prosecution could then follow that up by saying “See, look at her plotting this!” and what good would/does it do if one “what if” after another is raised (”cognitive fog, dream stares, command hallucinations”) and brought up?
Then if the prosecution points out the husband was sent to a CVS further away instead of a nearer one, the defense can rebut by saying Clancy still cared enough to find out if what she wanted her husband to pick up was there at the one further away. Then if the prosecution counters why then not send her husband to the CVS that was nearer to the house, the defense can bring up she can slip in and out of mental sanity (”what ifs”).
In every state there is the presumption of innocence, which should be, yet nonetheless tilts things in favor of the defense. Massachusetts law, in the Clancy case, placing the burden of proving her to be sane at the time on the prosecution further tilts things in favor of the defense.
So imagine what would occur in a case where a powerful, wealthy politician or just a wealthy person period (with a star defense) was in her position? It would tilt things triple in the favor of the defense.