Latest news with #insanityDefense
The Independent
4 days ago
- Health
- The Independent
State can't use medication evidence to counter insanity defense in fatal crash, Georgia court says
In the prosecution of a Georgia woman who caused a fatal car crash while suffering a psychotic break, the state cannot use evidence that she had stopped taking some of her psychiatric medications to counter her insanity defense, the state's highest court ruled Wednesday. 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.
Associated Press
4 days ago
- Health
- Associated Press
State can't use medication evidence to counter insanity defense in fatal crash, Georgia court says
ATLANTA (AP) — In the prosecution of a Georgia woman who caused a fatal car crash while suffering a psychotic break, the state cannot use evidence that she had stopped taking some of her psychiatric medications to counter her insanity defense, the state's highest court ruled Wednesday. 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.
Daily Mail
20-05-2025
- Daily Mail
Experts suggest jury is unlikely to believe Kentucky sheriff's insanity defense in fatal shooting of judge
Former prosecutors claim the Kentucky sheriff who shot a local judge dead in his chambers last year faces an uphill battle with his insanity defense. Letcher County Sheriff Shawn 'Mickey' Stines gunned down Judge Kevin Mullins inside the county courthouse on September 19. Exactly why Stines killed his close friend soon after they had lunch together remains a mystery, with only vague explanations from his lawyers so far. The shooting and the moments leading up to it were caught on film. Stines' lawyers plan to present an insanity defense if the case goes to trial, claiming two weeks of intense stress drove him to murder. Defense attorney Jeremy Bartley claimed Stines irrationally feared for the lives of his family after being questioned at a deposition for a sexual assault lawsuit. The sheriff told officers seconds after the shooting, 'They're trying to kidnap my wife and kid,' and expressed fear he would be murdered on the way to jail. But two former prosecutors believe a jury is unlikely to believe he was insane as he appeared to know right from wrong when he pulled the trigger. Georgia legal expert Phil Holloway pointed to Kentucky State Police bodycam footage of Stines being arrested minutes after the shooting. Stines was terrified of being transported to the Leslie County Jail, an hour's drive away, and begged to be locked up in the one next door instead. 'I leave this building, I won't draw another breath,' he told them while handcuffed, with his leg nervously shaking. Stines said he was worried the transport would stop along the way, and someone else would get in the car and kill him. Holloway said Stines' fear that he would be killed, however paranoid or delusional, showed he knew that murder was wrong. 'If they know right from wrong, they can still be convicted even if they have a mental health issue,' Holloway told Fox News. 'He knows that killing is wrong because he's asking the police to not kill him.' Michael Wynne, a former prosecutor in Houston, said the CCTV footage of the moments leading up to the shooting was even more damning. He said: 'The video shows he knows what he's doing is wrong. If you don't know what you're doing is wrong, you don't usher everybody else out of the room, and you don't go ahead and make sure the door is closed. 'Those are all things that show that he has an ability to make cognizant decisions.' Wynne said Stines risked a harsher sentence by trying an insanity defense, as the judge and jury could 'punish' him for pursuing it. Bartley issued a legal filing saying his client's state of mind at the time of the shooting would be key to his upcoming trial. He said the case would hinge on testimony that Stines gave at a deposition for a lawsuit by Sabrina Adkins days before the September 2024 shooting. Stines in that interview answered questions about one of his deputies allegedly sexually assaulting jail inmates. An accuser in that case claimed that she was forced by a deputy sheriff to have sex in Mullins' chambers for six months in exchange for staying out of jail. Bartley claimed Stines was concerned about backlash from his deposition testimony, which caused him to fear that his or his family's lives were in danger. The attorney claimed Stines' 'mental health' was affected by the perceived threat. He wrote: 'Ultimately, he was in fear for the safety of his wife and his daughter, and I think what you see there is the result of that.' Footage from just before the shooting showed Stines express concern about his family, and call his daughter from the judge's phone. Adkins accused Judge Mullins of inappropriate behavior, claiming she had witnessed him engaging in sexual acts with women in exchange for special treatment. This lawsuit, filed in January 2022, claimed Mullins was involved in a sex-for-favors scheme within his chambers. Adkins also alleged former deputy Ben Fields was involved and filmed illicit encounters, some of which reportedly involved Mullins. Stines, a close friend of Mullins for about 30 years, was mentioned in the legal proceedings just three days before the shooting. Bartley said: 'I think the deposition has several important roles in this case... it's going to be a large portion of the story we tell.'
Daily Mail
19-05-2025
- Daily Mail
Bad news for Kentucky sheriff who shot judge friend dead in his chambers
Former prosecutors claim the Kentucky sheriff who shot a local judge dead in his chambers last year faces an uphill battle with his insanity defense. Letcher County Sheriff Shawn 'Mickey' Stines gunned down Judge Kevin Mullins inside the county courthouse on September 19. Exactly why Stines killed his close friend soon after they had lunch together remains a mystery, with only vague explanations from his lawyers so far. The shooting and the moments leading up to it were caught on film. Stines' lawyers plan to present an insanity defense if the case goes to trial, claiming two weeks of intense stress drove him to murder. Defense attorney Jeremy Bartley claimed Stines irrationally feared for the lives of his family after being questioned at a deposition for a sexual assault lawsuit. The sheriff told officers seconds after the shooting, 'They're trying to kidnap my wife and kid,' and expressed fear he would be murdered on the way to jail. But two former prosecutors believe a jury is unlikely to believe he was insane as he appeared to know right from wrong when he pulled the trigger. Georgia legal expert Phil Holloway pointed to Kentucky State Police bodycam footage of Stines being arrested minutes after the shooting. Stines was terrified of being transported to the Leslie County Jail, an hour's drive away, and begged to be locked up in the one next door instead. 'I leave this building, I won't draw another breath,' he told them while handcuffed, his leg nervously shaking. Stines said he was worried the transport would stop along the way, and someone else would get in the car and kill him. Holloway said Stines' fear that he would be killed, however paranoid or delusional, showed he knew that murder was wrong. 'If they know right from wrong, they can still be convicted even if they have a mental health issue,' he told Fox News. 'He knows that killing is wrong because he's asking the police to not kill him.' Michael Wynne, a former prosecutor in Houston, said the CCTV footage of the moments leading up to the shooting was even more damning. 'The video shows he knows what he's doing is wrong. If you don't know what you're doing is wrong, you don't usher everybody else out of the room, and you don't go ahead and make sure the door is closed,' he said. 'Those are all things that show that he has an ability to make cognizant decisions.' Wynne said Stines risked a harsher sentence by trying an insanity defense, as the judge and jury could 'punish' him for pursuing it. Bartley issued a legal filing saying his client's state of mind at the time of the shooting would be key to his upcoming trial. He said the case would hinge on testimony that Stines gave at a deposition for a lawsuit by Sabrina Adkins days before the September 2024 shooting. Stines in that interview answered questions about one of his deputies allegedly sexually assaulting jail inmates. An accuser in that case claimed that she was forced by a deputy sheriff to have sex in Mullins' chambers for six months in exchange for staying out of jail. Bartley claimed Stines was concerned about backlash from his deposition testimony, which caused him to fear that his or his family's lives were in danger. Stines had been a close friend to Mullins for around 30 years and the pair had been seen dining together at a local restaurant for lunch just hours before the shooting The attorney claimed Stines' 'mental health' was affected by the perceived threat. 'Ultimately, he was in fear for the safety of his wife and his daughter, and I think what you see there is the result of that,' he wrote. Footage from just before the shooting showed Stines express concern about his family, and call his daughter from the judge's phone. Adkins accused Judge Mullins of inappropriate behavior, claiming she had witnessed him engaging in sexual acts with women in exchange for special treatment. This lawsuit, filed in January 2022, claimed Mullins was involved in a sex-for-favors scheme within his chambers. Adkins also alleged former deputy Ben Fields was involved and filmed illicit encounters, some of which reportedly involved Mullins. Stines, a close friend of Mullins for about 30 years, was mentioned in the legal proceedings just three days before the shooting. 'I think the deposition has several important roles in this case... it's going to be a large portion of the story we tell,' Bartley said.
Fox News
19-05-2025
- Fox News
Kentucky ex-sheriff's 'frivolous' insanity claim won't fly in judge's suspected murder: former prosecutors
Two former prosecutors say that the insanity defense planned by the defense attorney representing former Letcher County, Kentucky, Sheriff Shawn "Mickey" Stines will not hold up. Stines is accused of shooting and killing District Judge Kevin Mullins in the judge's chambers inside the Letcher County Courthouse on Sept. 19, 2024, in an attack that was captured on surveillance video. "It's very rare in most states, including Kentucky, the insanity defense and similar mental health defenses rarely work, because if the person knows right from wrong at the time they committed some criminal act, then any mental health issues are, I guess, secondary," Phil Holloway, a former prosecutor and legal analyst based in Georgia, told Fox News Digital. "If they know right from wrong, they can still be convicted even if they have a mental health issue." Last week, Fox News Digital released video footage of a Kentucky State Police (KSP) investigator and two troopers questioning a paranoid Stines in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. "I leave this building, I won't draw another breath," Stines told KSP Investigator Clayton Stamper, who led the investigation. "Y'all are gonna kill me, aren't you?" he asked at one point in the interview. "Y'all are gonna kill me, I know you are. Let's just get it over with. Let's just go." Holloway said even if the sheriff was paranoid, he still knew that the killing was wrong. "If you look at the sheriff's video from his discussions with law enforcement in the hallway right after the shooting, the sheriff expresses that he's concerned that the police or some other unnamed third party might hurt him or kill him," Holloway said. "And he's asking the cops, you know, he's even alleging that the police might stop en route to the jail to allow somebody else to do something. Now, those things might seem paranoid, and they may seem irrational, but at the same time, when he expresses those things to the officers, to me that indicates that he knows that killing is wrong. "It's interesting because he's telling the cop, he's telling the police not to do it. So, in a way, he's telegraphing that he knows right from wrong. And he knows that killing is wrong because he's asking the police to not kill him." Michael Wynne, a former prosecutor based in Houston, agrees with Holloway, especially given the surveillance footage from Mullins' chambers in the moments leading up to the shooting. "I think this is a frivolous defense," he told Fox News Digital. "The video shows he knows what he's doing is wrong. If you don't know what you're doing is wrong, you don't usher everybody else out of the room, and you don't go ahead and make sure the door is closed. Those are all things that show that he has an ability to make cognizant decisions." Wynne said he believes the best Stines will be able to do is plead guilty to the charges in hopes of taking the death penalty off the table, or potentially being given an opportunity for parole. "Based on the facts, he will lose the case [and] there will be a guilty verdict," Wynne said. "Now, the jury and judge are not supposed to weigh the fact that the defense puts on a case here of insanity. But people are people. And, you know, he'll be punished by the judge and the jury for raising what I think this is a frivolous defense." According to Stines' attorney, Jeremy Bartley, his defense is closely tied to allegations of sexual abuse that plagued Letcher County authorities, including some in the courthouse. Three days before the shooting, Stines was deposed in a civil sexual assault case against his former deputy, Ben Shields, who was accused of sexually abusing a woman. Stines was also named for failing to supervise Fields. Bartley declined to comment for this story but previously told Fox News Digital, "I think one of the big things is that my client felt there had been pressure placed on him not to say too much during the deposition, and not to talk about things that happened within the courthouse, particularly in the judge's chambers." Bartley said that threats against Stines' family caused the paranoia to reach a fever pitch. "On the day that this [shooting] happened, my client had attempted multiple times to contact his wife and daughter, and he firmly believed that they were in danger," Bartley said. "He believed that they were in danger because of what he knew to have happened within the courthouse. And there was pressure, and there were threats made to him to sort of keep him in line, to keep them from saying more than these folks wanted him to say."
