State can't use medication evidence to counter insanity defense in fatal crash, Georgia court says
Michelle Wierson was driving her Volkswagen Tiguan at high speed through the streets of DeKalb County, in Atlanta's suburbs, when she hit a Toyota Corolla stopped at a traffic light. The impact pushed the car into the intersection where it collided with another car. Miles Jenness, a 5-year-old passenger in the Toyota, suffered a traumatic brain injury and a severed spine and died days later.
Everyone agrees that Wierson caused the September 2018 wreck. Her defense attorneys filed notice that she intended to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, saying that at the time of the wreck she was suffering from a 'delusional compulsion' caused by mental illness that absolves her of criminal liability. The DeKalb County district attorney's office wanted to present evidence that Wierson had stopped taking some medication prescribed to treat bipolar disorder, arguing that the jury should be allowed to consider that she voluntarily contributed to her mental state.
The trial court said the state could use that evidence, but the state Court of Appeals reversed that ruling in a pretrial appeal. The state then appealed to the state Supreme Court, which upheld the intermediate appeals court's ruling.
An Atlanta-area psychologist with a years-long history of bipolar disorder, Wierson believed at the time of the crash that she was on a mission from God to save her daughter from being killed, her lawyers have said.
Georgia law outlines two tests for someone seeking to use an insanity defense at trial. Both have to do with the person's mental state 'at the time of' the alleged crime. The first says a person shall not be found guilty of a crime if they 'did not have mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong' related to the act. The second says a person shall not be found guilty of a crime if the person acted because of 'a delusional compulsion' that 'overmastered' their will.
An expert hired by the defense and another engaged by the court found that Wierson met both of those criteria. Justice Andrew Pinson wrote in Wednesday's majority opinion that the law says nothing about the cause of the person's mental state at the time of the crime.
'Put simply, the plain language of the insanity-defense statutes gives not even a hint that these defenses would not be available to a person who has 'brought about' the relevant mental state voluntarily, whether by not taking medication or otherwise,' he wrote.
Robert Rubin, a lawyer for Wierson, has said that his client is 'haunted by the tragic consequences' of her actions. But he said in an email Wednesday that he hopes the Supreme Court ruling will allow the case to be resolved without a trial.
'The Georgia Supreme Court reaffirmed the basic principle that the focus of an insanity case is the defendant's state of mind at the time of the act,' he wrote. 'The State never disputed that our client was insane at the time of the accident. Its attempt to make this case about alleged medication compliance was misplaced and dragged this case out unnecessarily.'
The DeKalb County district attorney's office did not immediately have a comment Wednesday. Bruce Hagen, a lawyer for the Jenness family said in an email that he was 'very disappointed, although not surprised' by the high court's ruling.
In its ruling on this case, the Supreme Court also overturned its own ruling in a 1982 case that had created an exception to the insanity defenses. That case involved a man diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia who, against his doctor's orders, put himself in a highly stressful situation and ended up killing two people.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Maryland's first-in-the-nation tax on digital ads violated Big Tech's free speech, judges say
Digital Ad Tax ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — Maryland's first-in-the-nation tax on digital advertising violated the Constitution, a federal appeals court says, because blocking Big Tech from telling customers about the tax violates the companies' right to free speech. Supporters say Maryland needed to overhaul its tax methods in response to significant changes in how businesses advertise. The tax focuses on large companies that make money advertising on the internet such as Meta, Google and Amazon, who say they're being unfairly targeted. The ongoing legal fight is being watched by other states that are considering taxes for online ads. Maryland estimated the tax could raise about $250 million a year to help pay for a sweeping K-12 education measure. Maryland's law says the companies must not only pay the tax, but avoid telling customers how it affects pricing, with no line items, surcharges or fees, said the appeals court Friday in siding with trade associations fighting the tax. Judge Julius Richardson cited the Colonial-era Stamp Act, which helped spark the Revolutionary War, and wrote that 'criticizing the government — for taxes or anything else — is important discourse in a democratic society.' The plaintiffs contended Maryland lawmakers were trying to insulate themselves from criticism and political accountability by forbidding companies from explaining the tax to their customers. 'A state cannot duck criticism by silencing those affected by its tax,' the judge wrote. The unanimous ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a decision by U.S. District Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby and sends the case back to her with instructions to consider an appropriate remedy in light of the panel's decision. Trade groups praised the decision. 'Maryland tried to prevent criticism of its tax scheme, and the Fourth Circuit recognized that tactic for what it was: censorship,' said Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said in a statement. The law imposes a tax based on global annual gross revenues for companies that make more than $100 million globally. Under the law, the tax rate is 2.5% for businesses making more than $100 million in global gross annual revenue; 5% for companies making $1 billion or more; 7.5% for companies making $5 billion or more and 10% for companies making $15 billion or more. The law has been challenged in multiple legal venues, including Maryland Tax Court, where the case is ongoing. The Maryland General Assembly, which is controlled by Democrats, overrode a veto of the legislation in 2021 by then-Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican. Solve the daily Crossword
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Conservative network Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims
DENVER (AP) — The conservative network Newsmax will pay $67 million to settle a lawsuit accusing it of defaming a voting equipment company by spreading lies about President Donald Trump's 2020 election loss, according to documents filed Monday. The settlement comes after Fox News Channel paid $787.5 million to settle a similar lawsuit in 2023 and Newsmax paid what court papers describe as $40 million to settle a libel lawsuit from a different voting machine manufacturer, Smartmatic, which also was a target of pro-Trump conspiracy theories on the network. Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis had ruled earlier that Newsmax did indeed defame Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems by airing false information about the company and its equipment. But Davis left it to a jury to eventually decide whether that was done with malice, and, if so, how much Dominion deserved from Newsmax in damages. Newsmax and Dominion reached the settlement before the trial could take place. The settlement was disclosed by Newsmax on Monday in a new filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. It said the deal was reached Friday. A spokesperson for Dominion said the company was pleased to have settled the lawsuit. The disclosure came as Trump, who lost his 2020 reelection bid to Democrat Joe Biden, vowed in a social media post Monday to eliminate mail-in ballots and voting machines such as those supplied by Dominion and other companies. It was unclear how the Republican president could achieve that. The same judge also handled the Dominion-Fox News case and made a similar ruling that the network repeated numerous lies by Trump's allies about his 2020 loss despite internal communications showing Fox officials knew the claims were bogus. At the time, Davis found it was 'CRYSTAL clear' that none of the allegations was true. Internal correspondence from Newsmax officials likewise shows they knew the claims were baseless. 'How long are we going to play along with election fraud?' Newsmax host Bob Sellers said two days after the 2020 election was called for Biden, according to internal documents revealed as part of the case. Newsmax took pride that it was not calling the election for Biden and, the internal documents show, saw a business opportunity in catering to viewers who believed Trump won. Private communications that surfaced as part of Dominion's earlier defamation case against Fox News also revealed how the network's business interests intersected with decisions it made related to coverage of Trump's 2020 election claims. At Newsmax, employees repeatedly warned against false allegations from pro-Trump guests such as attorney Sidney Powell, according to documents in the lawsuit. In one text, even Newsmax owner Chris Ruddy, a Trump ally, said he found it 'scary' that Trump was meeting with Powell. Dominion was at the heart of many of the wild claims aired by guests on Newsmax and elsewhere, who promoted a conspiracy theory involving deceased Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez to rig the machines for Biden. Though Trump has insisted his fraud claims are real, there's no evidence they were, and the lawsuits in the Fox and Newsmax cases show how some of the president's biggest supporters knew they were false at the time. Trump's then-attorney general, William Barr, said there was no evidence of widespread fraud. Trump and his backers lost dozens of lawsuits alleging fraud, some before Trump-appointed judges. Numerous recounts, reviews and audits of the election results, including some run by Republicans, turned up no signs of significant wrongdoing or error and affirmed Biden's win. After returning to office, Trump pardoned those who tried to halt the transfer of power during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and directed his Department of Justice to investigate Chris Krebs, a former Trump cybersecurity appointee who had vouched for the security and accuracy of the 2020 election. As an initial trial date approached in the Dominion case earlier this year, Trump issued an executive order attacking the law firm that litigated it and the Fox case, Susman Godfrey. The order, part of a series targeting law firms Trump has tussled with, cited Susman Godfrey's work on elections and said the government would not do business with any of its clients or permit any of its staff in federal buildings. A federal judge put that action on hold, saying the framers would view it as 'a shocking abuse of power. '
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Trump's mass deportation drive could spike inflation to 4% next year, Moody's economist claims
A top economist warned that President Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration could heat up inflation to 4% as the labor market tightens — a notion dismissed by the White House. The Trump administration has sealed off the southern border with Mexico, stanching the flood of the estimated 10 million illegal immigrants that entered the US under President Joe Biden. It has also rounded up thousands of illegal immigrants and plans to deport them. 5 Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's, warned President Trump's deportations are driving inflation higher. AP Mark Zandi, chief analyst at credit ratings agency Moody's, predicts that the loss of cheap foreign labor will drive up prices. 'If Trump continues deporting immigrants at the current rate, inflation will go from 2.5% to somewhere close to 4% by the time it hits its peak early next year,' Zandi told Fortune. 'Foreign-born labor force is declining, and the overall labor force has gone flat since the beginning of the year. That's causing tightening in a lot of markets, adding to costs and inflation.' Zandi's warning comes after the producer price index, a key inflation gauge, jumped 0.9% from June to July — the biggest monthly increase since 2021,' according to the Labor Department report last Thursday. Earlier in the week, the consumer price index edged up 0.2% in July and is at 2.7% year over year. 'You can see it in meat prices, agriculture, food processing, haircuts, dry cleaning,' Zandi said. 'The fingerprints of the restrictive immigration policy are all over the CPI and PPI numbers we got.' 5 President Donald Trump has defended his immigration crackdown as protecting American workers. Shutterstock The White House rejected the idea that deportations are fueling inflation. Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, told The Post that the administration is 'focused on protecting the American workforce' by utilizing 'untapped potential' at home. She pointed to data showing more than one in 10 young Americans are neither working nor in school. Since Trump returned to office, she added, '100% of job gains have gone to native-born American workers.' A White House official pointed to an executive order signed by the president in April which seeks to modernize workforce programs and expand apprenticeships to prepare Americans for high-paying skilled trade jobs. 5 Shoppers face rising grocery bills as wholesale prices jumped 3.3% over the past year. Getty Images The US faced shortages of 447,000 construction workers and 94,000 durable goods workers in 2024, with the Bureau of Labor Statistics projecting an annual shortfall of nearly half a million tradespeople over the next decade. As AI advances and manufacturing reshoring accelerates, demand will grow even further, according to the White House official. Trump's order directs the administration to support more than 1 million apprenticeships per year to meet the nation's future workforce needs. Nonetheless, even some of Trump's allies are uneasy. Heritage Foundation economist Steve Moore, who recently appeared alongside the president promoting alternative jobs data, admitted he is 'worried about a labor shortage.' 'I think the deportations of working illegal immigrants could have a slight impact on wages and thus prices,' Moore said. The Post has sought comment from Moore. The debate has split economists into two camps. Zandi's side — joined by analysts at Morgan Stanley, Barclays and Bank of America — argues Trump's deportations, border closures and what he calls 'self-deportations' are choking off labor supply. 'It's the southern border being shut down, it's deportations, it's self-deportations,' Zandi said. 'Immigrants are scared. They're leaving the country, they're not coming in, they're not going to work.' The opposing camp sees a different story: a real pullback in labor demand as businesses cut back. They point to shrinking payrolls in manufacturing, transportation and warehousing, along with surveys showing fewer job openings. 5 ICE officers detain migrants during a New York Post ride-along in Chicago as deportations accelerate. Matthew McDermott In that view, Trump's policies may matter 'at the margins,' Zandi conceded, but the main driver is weaker business confidence and softer consumer demand. The split matters for the Federal Reserve. A genuine demand slowdown would normally ease wage pressures and give the Fed room to cut rates. But if inflation is driven by labor shortages from immigration curbs, interest rates can't solve it. 'Demand-side inflation has a different implication for monetary policy than supply-side inflation,' Zandi told Fortune. 'Rate cuts won't bring more immigrants into the country.' He warned the inflationary impact of immigration restrictions will be harder to shake than tariffs. 5 A deportation flight prepares to depart as the number of immigrants entering the US collapses. EL SALVADOR'S PRESIDENCY PRESS OFFICE/AFP via Getty Images 'Tariffs are more likely to be one-off,' Zandi told Fortune. 'Restrictive immigration adds to shortages, higher labor costs and wages — and that can become self-reinforcing.' Bank of America economists echoed the stagflation risk, saying it's why they expect the Fed to hold rates steady this year. Markets so far have stayed upbeat, with the S&P 500 near record highs on expectations of a September cut. But bond traders are already bracing for a tougher Fed, pushing short-term Treasury yields higher.
