| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Home Front: WoT | ||
| Accused Fort Hood shooter refuses psychiatric evaluation | ||
| 2010-10-08 | ||
| The former Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, refused to participate in a psychiatric evaluation of himself on Thursday, his lawyer told CNN. Three military psychiatrists on Thursday showed up at the Texas jail where Maj. Nidal Hasan is incarcerated to conduct a sanity review, but his layer, John Galligan, told CNN that he filled out a form saying he and his client would not cooperate. The psychiatrists left without conducting the review, said Galligan, who objects to the timing of the review and to the composition of the military's "sanity board." A Fort Hood spokesman, Tyler Broadway, said that the psychiatric evaluation is ongoing, despite Thursday's developments. The officer overseeing the criminal case against Hasan is asking for a sanity review for the defendant "without further delay," according to a memo obtained by CNN on Tuesday. The request came a week before Hasan's Article 32 hearing next Tuesday, a key pre-trial procedure in which the first public testimony is given in the case. Hasan is charged with 13 counts of murder in connection with the November 5 shooting at the Army's largest base, located in central Texas between Dallas and San Antonio. Galligan, a civilian attorney, has told CNN that he has instructed his client not to talk to anyone connected with the sanity review, and called the sudden push for the examination part of an Army attempt to "distract" him as he prepares for the upcoming hearing. Col. Morgan Lamb, the officer overseeing the case, had indicated in January that the military would not "meet with, test or examine" Hasan until after the Article 32 hearing. But in the memo obtained by CNN, Lamb said he reversed his decision after the defense said in court last month that it may introduce that the mental capacity evidence for consideration in the case -- after previously saying it would not raise the issue of mental capacity or competency.
The Article 32 hearing is named after the section of military law that mandates it. It's similar to a civilian grand jury proceeding, but is open to the public and both the defense and prosecution can present witnesses and evidence. | ||
| Posted by:tipper |
| #7 The Rules for Court Martial state that lack of mental responsibility is an affirmative defense when the accused was *unable* to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. So burden of proof is on the defense. The accused is presumed to be mentally responsible unless and until the defense can show otherwise by clear and convincing evidence. That is a higher standard (~75%) than preponderance of the evidence (~51%+) applied in civil trials, but lower than beyond a reasonable doubt (~98%) applied in criminal trials. The inquiry must address the following: (A) At the time of the alleged criminal conduct, did the accused have a severe mental disease or defect? (The term “severe mental disease or defect” does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct, or minor disorders such as nonpsychotic behavior disorders and personality defects.) (B) What is the clinical psychiatric diagnosis? (C) Was the accused, at the time of the alleged criminal conduct and as a result of such severe mental disease or defect, unable to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his or her conduct? (D) Is the accused presently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering the accused unable to understand the nature of the proceedings against the accused or to conduct or cooperate intelligently in the defense? So, it comes down whether being an armed Islamofascist is a mental disease or defect. If yes, the guy walks. If no, then what the hell is? This could be a deeply existential question, if it wasn't the Chewbacca defense. |
| Posted by: RandomJD 2010-10-08 13:41 |
| #6 Where is the burden of proof if someone takes the insanity defense? I say it should be with the defense, to be verified by the prosecution. |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-10-08 12:33 |
| #5 Hassan is not insane. It should be noted that a military psychological evaluation is very lengthy, but typically asks very straightforward questions like what is your name, what is today's date, what was elementary school like, do you remember your second grade teachers name, etc? These types of analyses are ones Hassan would pass with flying colors. It is just a case where he may be Muslim but conversely still lucid enough to know what his premeditated murders were. |
| Posted by: PrivateEye 2010-10-08 12:13 |
| #4 Hassan ain't crazy, he's just a little Islamic. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2010-10-08 11:20 |
| #3 Remember that this is a military court martial, not some civilian court where lawyer razzle dazzle prevails. Lawyers that try that before a military court get their tail feathers burned. A court martial is the *last* place I would want to get tried if guilty, and the *first* place I would want to get tried if innocent. When you cut out much of the bulldada, the law actually works. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-10-08 09:59 |
| #2 Actually, refusing pychiatric eval was smart on his part. The question now lingers, at least in the minds of some. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-10-08 09:16 |
| #1 Why don't we put this murderer in front of a firing squad. He dosen't have to participate in that either, he just has to be there. |
| Posted by: armyguy 2010-10-08 09:12 |