Can Mental Health be a trial strategy?
How Does the Defense Get Mental Health into trial in Idaho?
August 14, 2020
Hello Friends: Thanks to you, we topped 1000 subscribers this week, and a few of you took the time to give me some great feedback and questions. Chris’s question warrants a full post. Thanks, Chris!
Hi Lori
Thanks for your recent email. After reading your comments (pertinent and thorough as usual) I am left wondering that if Chad and Lori believe themselves to be these exceptional beingss in relation to LDS (or an even stranger form of it) how is this not delusional? What view would the Court take as to the mental status of people who believe that they are beyond human and also (possibly/allegedly) commit acts of conspiracy to conceal the remains of children and (potentially) serial murder/conspiracy to murder. Also would these beliefs be taken up by the prosecution as the main motive for the current and subsequent charges, or would the issues of (possible) benefit and insurance fraud be considered of equal weight. The other issue is that of the need to get people ‘out of the way’ on behalf of the alleged perpetrators, so that they can be together and unencumbered, in order to carry out their religious missions. I suppose I’m asking, at what point to the parameters of secular reason kick in to a crime that seems to arise from a (admittedly customised) religious cult-like construction of reality? Especially within the context of the LDS religion (and it’s vagaries) being mainstream(thereby influencing the views of the jurors/judge/media/witnesses etc) Would the case, indeed, need to be moved to a less LDS setting in order to get a fair trial for the victims and not just the defendants? I would love your opinion on this?
Many thanks. Chris.
The place where psychology and the law converge is a most interesting spot. It’s the reason that
so many people, myself included, are interested in true crime. The question is: when can aberrant criminal behavior be excused by mental illness or mental defect?
I’ve been reading and listening to a lot on this subject, and I found Dr. John Mathias’ podcast, Hidden, especially informative.
There have been many attempts over the years to define when a person should not be responsible for their criminal actions because of a mental disease or defect. While many may see this as counting angels on the head of a pin, these legal nuances are what keep lawyers and judges up at night. Here are the four most common definitions.
M’Naghten. The M’Naghten test is the oldest and most narrow definition. It arose from a case in England in 1843. To be found legally insane under the M’Naghten rule, the defendant must not know either the nature and quality of the criminal act or that the act was wrong. Some jurisdictions add legally wrong or legally and morally wrong. Either the defendant must be so mentally diseased or defective that they don’t know their behavior is wrong, or that they don’t understand the true nature of their action. For example, she doesn’t understand that it’s wrong to kill your husband, OR she was so delusional she thought her husband was a bear.
Irresistible Impulse. This defense adds a layer. In this one, the defendant may also argue that even if they knew the conduct was wrong, they were unable to control their behavior or conform their conduct to the law. This defense is much broader than the M’Naghten rule and has fallen out of favor over the years.
Substantial Capacity. The standard, which was adopted in the Model Penal Code in 1962, says, “A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law” (Model Penal Code § 4.01(1)). The standard fell out of favor when lawyers successfully argued that John Hinckley was insane when he attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in 1982.
Durham Defense. New Hampshire is the only state that uses this standard. In this rule, the accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect. It adds a layer that the mental defect must be the cause of the criminal act.
Idaho treats insanity radically different from most states. Idaho does not recognize any of the mental defect defenses, so the above definitions don’t apply as in other states. Contrary to what some commentators have said, it doesn’t mean the issue of mental disease or defect is entirely off the table.
As I outlined in my earlier newsletter, titled Let’s Talk Law, Every crime begins with a required mental state. In general terms, a crime is committed intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently. If you intentionally murder someone, that suggests some level of planning. Knowingly murdering someone suggests that you know you are killing someone but may not have planned it until the split second before it occurred. If you recklessly kill someone, you commit an act that you knew had the possibility of causing someone’s death, while negligence suggests that you didn’t consider a risk. These are general definitions because jurisdictions may slightly. What doesn’t change is that every crime starts with a mental state. Instead of mental illness being a defense, in Idaho, a defendant must prove that their mental disease or defect prevented them from forming the requisite mental state.
More angels on pins, you say? Maybe a practical explanation will help. In the Chad and Lori case, the charges are that they “did willfully conceal and/or did aid and abet another to willfully conceal human remains, knowing that the said human remains were about to be produced, used and /or discovered as evidence in a felony proceeding inquiry and/or investigation authorized by law, with the intent to prevent it from being so produced, used and/or discovered.” Under IC 18-101, “The word “willfully,” when applied to the intent with which an act is done or omitted, implies simply a purpose or willingness to commit the act or make the omission referred to. It does not require any intent to violate the law, or to injure another, or to acquire any advantage.” Idaho law uses the word “willfully,” where many states use the word “intentionally.” There are a lot of willfullys and intents in Chad and Lori’s charge. To raise the issue of mental disease or defect, Chad and Lori must be able to prove they were unable to form a willful or intentional mental state. That’s going to be a tough pull for John Prior and Mark Means because juries are instructed that they may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence they are presented, including inferences about a person’s intent or willfulness. Let’s look at what Chad, Lori, and Alex did: on both occasions, they waited until Chad’s wife, Tammy, left for work. Tylee’s remains were dismembered and burned, in an obvious effort to destroy or conceal them. Later, JJ’s remains were wrapped in plastic and duct tape and buried under a layer of wood. These are not the actions of people who didn’t have the mental capacity to act willfully; they are the actions of people acting in a willful planful, and intentional way. It doesn’t mean they weren’t convinced God was telling them to do it, or that they didn’t believe they were supreme beings that would suffer no consequences; those simply aren’t defenses that are allowed under Idaho law.
In a state where mental disease or defect is a defense, Chad or Lori could argue that their religious delusions led them to believe they were saving the children by killing them. That same defense didn’t save Andrea Yates from a conviction after she drowned her five children because she believed Satan was in her, and that she had to save the children from damnation while they were still innocent enough to get into heaven. Unlike Chad or Lori, Yates had a lengthy history of hospitalizations for mental illness, including complete breaks with reality.
Chris’s question about motive is a good one. Prosecutors don’t have to prove motive. That said, we humans are meaning-seeking creatures, and understanding someone’s motive helps us make sense of their actions. Juries want to know why, so Prosecutors use theories, to explain how and why the crime might have happened, The theory of the case is the framework a prosecutor arranges the evidence around, kind of like using the picture on the jigsaw puzzle box as a guide. People are complex and can often have more than one motive for committing a crime. I expect Rob Wood to build his framework on the theory that Chad and Lori believed they were supreme beings, so all their actions were justified. Then he will show how each of their decisions sprung from that. They believed God had ordained that they be together, so they felt justified in doing whatever was needed to be together. They believed their work was so important it justified any means possible to get money to support it. They believed their work was so important that it justified killing anyone who got in their way. You can see how one unifying theory can work to answer the question of motive.
Idaho has the second-highest population of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Utah is number one, with 68%, Idaho has 26%, followed by Wyoming with 12%, Nevada, and Arizona with 6%. Put another way, 74% of Idaho’s population are not church members, but 97% of people living in Rexburg, Idaho, are church members. That demographic could cut both ways for Chad and Lori. Some think a jury of mostly mainstream church members would be sensitive to Chad and Lori’s beliefs. Others expect mainstream church members to be outraged. I count myself in the second camp. As I’ve said before, I am not a member of the church. However, I live in a community with a large church population. In my own experience, I find my Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints neighbors to be kind, pleasant, and above all, law-abiding. I expect members of the church to be outraged by the suggestion that their beliefs could justify the crimes Chad and Lori committed. The fact that the community is made up mostly of people who are members of the church would not be a legal basis for a change of venue. A change of venue would be justified if the defense can show there has been so much pretrial publicity the majority of people have already formed an opinion about guilt or innocence.
I hope I answered the question, Chris. Please keep them coming.
