On the day in question, Mr. Juneau was caught up in several mishaps but because of certain conditions, he shouldn’t be held liable for any of them. Three crimes committed, which included the following:
• Possession of Nutria- an endangered species- with the intent to distribute;
• Theft of gas; and
• The murder of the neighbor.
All three can be considered very serious offenses and therefore must be thoroughly reviewed so that it can be proven that Mr. Juneau isn’t guilty. Our defense will be that Mr. Juneau is not guilty due to diminished capacity. A diminished capacity defense allows for lessening of a guilty verdict based on the defendant 's mental impairment. His intellectual insanity has been …show more content…
This Court will have to allow this defense because in Arizona 's limited insanity defense in Clark v. Arizona, and denied certiorari in Delling v. Idaho, a case alleging that Idaho 's replacement of the insanity defense with a "Guilty but mentally ill" verdict constitutes a due process violation. Because of the weighty implications of the decision to plead insanity, the defendant must be the one to decide whether to use the insanity …show more content…
Juneau has lived a mostly secluded life. Because of this, testing his mental capacity hasn’t been a priority for anyone to document. With that being said, it may be a hard fought defense to try to get the State to allow Mr. Juneau to use mental illness as his primary defense against these crimes. The truth about the insanity defense in America is that it is difficult to plead, seldom used and almost never successful. But in that small number of cases where it is successful, it is sometimes manipulated or abused in a way that often grabs headlines and captures the imagination of the public. Ultimately, only a jury can decide the issue of insanity, which in itself may be the most controversial aspect about the insanity defense. In other words, people who have no training in the field, rarely come into contact with the mentally ill and have a minimal understanding of the issues involved, make legal, long-lasting judgments that are frequently based on shifting criteria.
If he were to be denied the opportunity to use the defense, there would need to be a secondary set of defenses which allow the charges against him to be greatly mitigated. The team would have to consider accepting a plea to lessen the time he would ultimately be incarcerated. It would be unfavorable but because of the fact that there was actus reus but lacked mens rea, it would be hard to get him not have him serve any time at