Originally published at: Pelosi husband attacker's trial begins; own lawyer admits David DePape is a far-right conspiracy theorist | Boing Boing
…
4 Likes
I doubt that the phrase “stochastic terrorism” will be uttered by the prosecution, but it really should be. This arsehole is not a “lone wolf”, but someone who was thoroughly indoctrinated and radicalized by fascists.
28 Likes
So, an insanity defense.
15 Likes
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the imprisonment of domestic terrorists.
19 Likes
Imagine being so convinced of all of this conspiracy BS to take it upon yourself to “do something” about it, only to end up as part of some conspiracy about being Pelosi’s “gay lover” or some BS instead of the hero you were trying to be.
12 Likes
It says something that their goto insult/conspiracy theory is “teh gay.”
15 Likes
Actually, no, they are not raising an insanity defense. It’s a very odd approach, and I don’t see how it’s going to work. From the article:
“They haven’t raised an insanity defense. What they’re trying to do is, in a sense, use a back door to bring in some kind of mental insanity; that he’s just crazy,” said Little. “But that’s not a defense unless you raise it as an insanity defense.”
I don’t see how that’s going to work. It’s basically, “We admit our client did it, but it’s ok because he’s kinda nuts. Not legally insane, just kinda nuts. So…maybe cut him some slack.” I don’t get what they’re doing, unless their client just flat out refused to allow them to make an actual insanity defense and so they’re left with this bizarre strategy. If you have a client who won’t take a plea deal, and won’t let you mount your strongest legal defense, you’re left with just grasping at straws. I suspect that’s what’s going on.
ETA: I don’t know that an actual insanity defense would fair much better. After John Hinckley successfully used an insanity defense, the law changed to make such defenses much, much harder to make. It’s not enough to show that your client has some mental illness that’s responsible for his actions. You have to show that he actually no longer knows right from wrong, both legally and morally. So, someone may be hearing voices and say that God demanded they kill someone, but if they are still aware that murder is against the law, an insanity defense will fail. In this case, I don’t think an insanity defense would succeed anyway, so maybe this bizarre strategy is all they have.
10 Likes
No, “Ignorance is no excuse!”
2 Likes
Indeed. “I firmly believed him to be a werewolf, and therefore had to kill him” does not seem like a very useful defense, regardless of the sincerity of the belief, outside of an insanity plea. But, of course, IANAL.
12 Likes
And it might not even work as an insanity defense, if you still know that killing the werewolf would still be considered murder, and that murder is against the law. Insanity defenses rarely work anymore.
9 Likes
If firm belief in something is all that is required to be exonerated, then almost no criminal prosecution could result in a conviction. The precedent could spell the end of the American legal system.
“I believe with all my heart that I had to kill him / that the money in the bank is mine / that I don’t have to pay my taxes / that I can drive as fast as I want…etc. etc.”
4 Likes
I don’t see how this is going to work either. As you said, not guilty by reason of insanity is a very narrow an specific defense that has to be raised. Are they prepping for the sentencing phase? Hoping he will get off lightly or get sent to a mental institution instead of jail? Are they hoping for jury nullification or a hung jury?
Apparently people far more versed in this part of the law then me are also confused.
“There’s always a shot, but there’s almost no legal argument here,” said UC Law San Francisco Professor Rory Little, an expert on federal criminal procedure. “The defense is trying to say, ‘Well, he really believed other things. He didn’t really believe that he was going to be assaulting Paul Pelosi.’ But he doesn’t have to believe it. At the moment he hit him with a hammer, he knew he was hitting him with a hammer.”
10 Likes
OK, he really believed that he was going to assault and kidnap Nancy Pelosi. How is that better? (Rhetorical question, of course.)
12 Likes
Mr. DePape believes all these things … with every ounce of his being.
Man needs to lose some weight. (Mentally, if not physically.)
3 Likes
The I’m not responsible for Collateral Damage defense.
Innovative.
2 Likes
Is this supposed to be some sort of tasty bend of “it’s not a lie if you believe it” and “it’s not a crime if the president does it”?
It’s not a crime when you believe it’s legal?
2 Likes
“Members of the jury, many of us do not believe any of that,” said Linker. “But the evidence in this trial will show that Mr. DePape believes all these things … with every ounce of his being.”
Well unless you’re going for a not-guilty-by-reason-of-mental-defect affirmative defense, that means nothing.
3 Likes
Exactly. This is where some people get tripped up on the meaning of intent. You don’t have to have intended the specific end result, only your actions. He only had to have intended to hit someone with the hammer. That’s sufficient intent for the prosecution. It doesn’t matter if he meant to hit someone else, it doesn’t matter if he didn’t actually mean to hit him, it only matters that he meant to swing the hammer.
8 Likes
The idea is that if he really beloved this stuff, his intent doesn’t fit the definition of the crime he was charged with.
2 Likes
Seems like quite a tightrope to walk. If they aren’t claiming he was insane then they have to make the case that a reasonable person could believe the things that drove him to think his actions were justified.
That might work in a case where someone assaulted a meter-reader they believed to be an intruder but this is a different kind of situation entirely.
4 Likes
