Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Divine Revelation" Unlikely to Influence Court
The Salt Lake Tribune ^ | Wednesday, March 19, 2003 | Stephen Hunt

Posted on 03/19/2003 3:51:19 PM PST by henbane


"Divine Revelation" Unlikely to Influence Court

BY Stephen Hunt
Wednesday March 19, 2003
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

Brian David Mitchell and Wanda Barzee may believe God ordered them to kidnap Elizabeth Smart, but legal experts say divine revelation will be little help to them in the courtroom.
"Being egged on by another is not a defense," said Assistant Utah Attorney General Michael Wims. "It is not a defense that God urged them to do it."

Mitchell, 49, and Barzee, 57, were charged Tuesday in 3rd District Court with aggravated kidnapping and five other felonies in connection with the June 5 abduction of then-14-year-old Elizabeth and the attempted abduction of her cousin in July.
Barzee told a friend that on Thanksgiving 2000, Mitchell received a prophecy from God to take Smart and six other girls as plural wives.
But Utah's insanity law -- the strictest in the nation -- focuses on a defendant's intent to commit a crime, leaving little room for theological explanations or excuses.
"You've got a defense only if, as a result of mental defect or disease, you cannot form the intent necessary to commit the crime," Wims said.

A mentally ill defendant can be held accountable in a kidnapping case if he intentionally detained a victim and understood the victim was human, defense attorney Mark Moffat said.
"Utah law makes a defense of insanity extremely difficult under any circumstance," Moffat said.

Questioning Competency: One of the first questions to resolve in the Smart kidnapping case is whether the defendants are mentally competent. A judge likely will probe whether they are able to understand the charges against them and the potential punishments; and whether they are able to consult with their attorneys and participate in the proceedings.
Judges have psychologists interview the defendant and submit reports. If the experts disagree, a hearing may be held.


Salt Lake District Attorney David Yocom said Tuesday that his office would push for quick resolution of the competency question. "We want [psychologists] appointed immediately," Yocom said.


If either Mitchell or Barzee is found incompetent, he or she would receive treatment.
Utah law allows a criminal defendant charged with a first-degree felony, such as aggravated kidnapping, to be treated for up to 2 1/2 years at the Utah State Hospital. After that, a defendant must be released, although a judge may order civil commitment to a secure institution if the defendant remains a danger to himself, herself or others.


Arguing Insanity: A competent, yet ill, defendant can argue at trial that he is not guilty due to insanity -- but the threshold is high.
Moffat helped challenge Utah's insanity statute on behalf of Tomas Herrera in one of the few cases where a defendant was allowed to plead not guilty by reason of insanity.
In 1991 in West Jordan, Herrera -- a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic -- shot and killed his common-law wife, Claudia Martinez, believing she was a non-human double.
Prosecutors agreed Herrera was not guilty by reason of insanity based on a psychiatrist's report that he suffered "substitution delusions."
The doctor, however, found Herrera knew the victim's mother and brother were human beings and had intentionally tried to kill them.


Herrera pleaded guilty and mentally ill to the attempted murder counts, was sentenced to 1 to 15 years, then challenged the constitutionality of Utah's insanity statute.
In 1999, in a split 3-2 decision, the Utah Supreme Court upheld Herrera's convictions for attempted murder. The inability to understand right from wrong remains the standard in many states and in the federal court system. It is also a standard that might fit the defendants in the Smart case. "If God's telling you to do it, is it wrong?" asked Moffat.

Mitigating Factors: A defendant also can raise the issue of mental illness to lessen the severity of a conviction.
For example, a mentally ill defendant in Utah cannot claim insanity if he killed someone "believing it was Adolph Hitler and you were going to save the Jewish race, or an enemy soldier believing you were going to be killed," Moffat said, but he could still offer that explanation to a jury hearing the case. "It may mitigate the facts, but it is not an absolute defense to your conduct," Moffat said. Defendants also may raise disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder or battered women's syndrome to explain their actions.

[Emphasis added]

   


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: bryandavidmitchell; elizabethsmart; insanityplea; legalissues; wandabarzee
With the possibility that Bryan David Mitchell will be representing and defending himself in his oen trial, the potential legal twists and turns in this case are numerous.

Bryan Mitchell (aka Emmanuel)is a character who is completly convinced he is the second coming of Joseph Smith and has twenty-seven handwritten pages of text to back it up. It's extremely doubtful that will ever cop to an insanity plea.

The question is, will he be declared insane by the State before he ever steps out onto the courtroom floor.?

1 posted on 03/19/2003 3:51:19 PM PST by henbane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: henbane
Fortunately, we have a tape of him before another court. He is a "bad" person. He was very coherent during that court session.

He lies and does what he wants using his own private ethics. However, those ethics are illegal.

2 posted on 03/19/2003 4:01:47 PM PST by Sacajaweau (Hillary: Constitutional Scholar! NOT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: henbane
The fact that he was introducing Elizabeth as his "daughter" and not his "wife" clearly shows that he knew what he was doing was wrong. If he truly believed God had spoken to him and told him to take Elizabeth as his wife, then he wouldn't have been saying she was his daughter.
3 posted on 03/19/2003 4:12:04 PM PST by Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Fortunately, we have a tape of him before another court.

Could you indicate the source of that tape? Is it mentioned in an article you can give a name or link to? What court and legal docket is this tape related to?

This will be an important source for Freeper discussion when the upcoming trial finally gets under way.

4 posted on 03/19/2003 5:41:03 PM PST by henbane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: henbane
It was the tape from when he was picked up drunk. He was speaking to the judge in court at the time of being charged. He spent six days in jail. The tape was on TV and I don't get cable so CBS, NBC or ABC. He was quite articulate, didn't talk weird but was lying through his teeth. After seeing that, I'd say the guy was creative not insane, using Religion to suit his purpose. His robe garbage is just a costume.
5 posted on 03/19/2003 6:23:37 PM PST by Sacajaweau (Hillary: Constitutional Scholar! NOT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Green
He said Elizabeth was his daughter.

Exactly! He's a Pretender. When he needs the Religion stuff, he uses it.

6 posted on 03/19/2003 6:28:52 PM PST by Sacajaweau (Hillary: Constitutional Scholar! NOT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
He was quite articulate, didn't talk weird but was lying through his teeth. After seeing that, I'd say the guy was creative not insane, using Religion to suit his purpose.

This guy seems to have some experience with the courtroom scene. His fast talking ways got him out of the San Diego shoplifting charge (released on personal recognizance but never showed up for the hearing) and the seven days in the slammer(Lake City?)but did his time and promised the Judge that he would never stray from the straight and narrow again. Walked away back to the abducted Elizabeth.

Brian David will be a formidable defender of himself if the Court lets him blab on about his weird religious program and interrogate witnesses at trial.

He [attorney Larry Long, now gone] said [Sunday 3/16} his client, who did handyman work at the Smart house one day in November 2001, was on a fruit-only diet in jail.

"I found him to be very intelligent, very knowledgeable, very coherent and very articulate in his expression of his views," Long said. . . . .

He also said Mitchell, 49, wanted to be known as Immanuel David Isaiah, and wanted Barzee, 57, to be called Hephzibah Eladah Isaiah. Mitchell's name for Elizabeth, Long said, is Shear Jashub Isaiah, or "Remnant Who Will Return."

Prosecutors weigh odds in Smart case

Mitchell is definitely living in his own twisted reality. But his craziness presents a problem for the Court: if he is let loose in the courtroom, he may end up gaining sympathy from the jury, but if he is declared insane he will be shipped to a mental facility for 2 1/2 years and then released back onto the street.

No wonder DA Yokom wants to settle this issue ASAP.

7 posted on 03/19/2003 7:58:14 PM PST by henbane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson