Quote:
Originally Posted by Dude111
So does that mean she goes scott free??
|
Absolutely not. The charges and indictment still exist. A mistrial doesn't erase that. However, it is undecided whether they actually retry it. She will remain in pre-trial psychiatric hold as long as those charges exist. However, prosecution doesn't have unlimited time. If there is no motion towards trial, then the defense could file for dismissal on the basis of violating right to speedy trial.The mistrial immediately restarted the ticking of the speedy trial clock. If they don't move forward and the defense doesn't waive right to speedy, that means that it can't be tried again. In that case, there will instantly be a motion for involuntary civil commitment and there are safeguards in place that prevent her from leaving in the interim time between charges being dropped and the motion for civil confinement being approved. This all would just mean that she would essentially become a hospitalized and strictly monitored psychiatric patient indefinitely rather than a hospitalized pre-trial inmate. If the state moves forward with trial, then I think there is a good chance that the defense will waive the right to a speedy trial so that more time can be spent on pre-trial proceedings, negotiations, and building a revised case. That would make the case drag on for quite a while (long enough that it temporarily falls out of collective public discourse).
There are a few other things that could be done.
1) new jury trial on reduced charges (such as manslaughter or second degree murder). From the prosecution's perspective: perhaps a jury would be less inclined to "give her a break" if she was already given a break by having charges brought down to manslaughter.
2) plea deal (either a full guilty plea to a lesser charge like manslaughter or because the jury was so close to an acquittal there is a chance that they could do a special kind of "plea deal"(technically a bench trial where the prosecution doesn't argue against-it is called a stipulated bench trial) where the prosecution doesn't contest her "not guilty due to lacking criminal responsibility" plea and instead asks the judge to simply enter that as the final verdict-which would carry the same weight and consequences for her as a jury finding of not guilty due to lacking criminal responsibility (ie. still not going home))
3) non-stipulated bench trial. In this case she waives her right to a jury trial and allows a judge to decide the verdict while the state argues against her.
4)they simply drop the charges- in which, again, her confinement simply becomes classified on paper as civil rather than criminal, but she will still be just as confined.
A lot of it depends on how hard the state wants to push for the dubious possibility of a guilty verdict.
I personally think that having a judge simply rule not guilty by reason of insanity through a stipulated bench trial is the best outcome. It gives a lot more closure than simply dismissal or dropping of charges (because it is a formal ruling that she actually did do the act, but is not criminally responsible due to insanity)...personally I think there is enough reasonable doubt and this is the correct verdict....and it is cleaner,quieter, and quicker than a drawn out jury trial.
Patrick probably does not want another trial-particularly a jury one. I know I wouldn't. She admitted it, but there are still people blaming him and acting like he must have manipulated her into believing she did it. I certainly wouldn't take it lightly that so many people in the public are blaming ME for killing my kids when I had nothing to do with it. He is a victim and there would be outrage if the genders were reversed and people were blaming her. Men get blamed and slandered and it's totally unfair, but it is what it is I guess.