I'm just curious about a few questions. I've got a side-character who's shot and killed a police officer. They're arrested and plead non-guilty by insanity. I have a few questions below. Can families be present for the verdict of said character? How long do trials/verdicts usually take in real-time? Six hours or more? If somebody is not guilty by insanity, are they detained a psychiatric unit without probation?
I can tell you that a murder trial in the U.S. would take more like 6 days or weeks at the minimum with any competent defense attorney.
No, I'm not a lawyer or involved in the judicial system, but just keeping up with current events, news, etc., I know that 6 hours is far too short for a murder trial. My recommendation would be to read up on some famous murder cases and also some not so famous ones to get a gauge for how the process works. For starters, it wasn't (technically) a murder trial, but the case of John Hinckley Jr., the man that shot Ronald Reagan, covers some of the things you ask about (insanity defense, incarceration and treatment of the criminally insane). Keep in mind this is a high profile case like the O.J. Simpson case so you should research less famous cases to get a handle on typical timelines, strategies, etc.
It wasn't a police officer, but the trial of George Zimmerman in Florida is a good example of a "high profile" murder trial, and you should assume that any trial for the murder of a police officer would be "high profile." The Wikipedia article on the case lays out the time line: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_George_Zimmerman Ziggy, can we assume that you are not in the United States and therefore not conversant with U.S. law? Remember that in the U.S. there are fifty states, and each state has its own laws and its own [state] judicial system. This means that there are probably considerable variations in the length of time various aspects of a case/trial may take, even though murder is illegal in every state. "Policemen" usually refers to state or local police officers rather than to federal law enforcement agents (such as the FBI). This means that the murder of a "policeman" would be tried in a court in the state where the murder took place, not in a federal court. The federal court would hear the case only if the policeman was a federal officer. The length of the trial would depend on the complexity of the case, the number of witnesses, and how technical their testimony might be. For example, if there is any question about how far away the defendant was from the victim when the shots were fired, both sides might introduce expert witnesses to testify about the gun used, the ballistics, and "GSR" (Gun Shot Residue -- i.e. powder burns and how much actual gunpowder was deposited on the victim's clothing). It would not be unusual for the direct, cross, re-direct and re-cross examination of each expert witness to take up at least one full day of the trial. In a case where the defense is an insanity plea, the defense will call at least one psychiatrist (probably at least two) to testify that the defendant was clinically insane at the time of the murder. The prosecution will probably counter with at least one psychiatrist who will testify that the defendant was NOT insane at the time of the murder. The direct, cross, de-direct, and re-cross examination of each of these experts, just like the ballistics experts I mentioned above, could easily take at least a full day for each of them. Keep in mind that an insanity defense will be based on the way the law is written in the state where the murder took place. Again, I am njot a lawyer but my layman's understanding is that an insanity defense requires that the defense prove the defendant did not understand at that moment that what he (or she) did was wrong. I am not a lawyer, but I know some lawyers who discuss such matters. I would say that 6 days is not nearly enough time for the trial of a person accused of murdering a police officer. That's just the trial. Then there's the length of time the jury needs to make their decision. Depending on the complexity of the case and the quality of the witnesses and the evidence, that would be anywhere from an hour to several weeks. To answer another part of your question: Barring unusual circumstances, trials in the U.S. are open and public, and members of the victim's family can (and usually do) attend. If they cannot control their emotions and they disrupt the proceedings, the judge might then have them removed from the courtroom.
This is extremely informative. I'm diving into the research heavily in terms of the process of incarceration as well as devouring a bunch of different court-cases in order to get a feel for what I'm going for. Your information has helped shed a new light on the intricacies of substantial evidence, witnesses, and GSR though. It completely went over my head how deep the prosecution goes in terms of their intent to extrapolate the entire murder-scene from witnesses all the way to psychologists. I'm based in the UK but my story is set within Washington State, so I'll be focusing on looking at cases within that state in order to get a general idea. Thank you for the information though. I really appreciate it.
I assume courts work the same in the UK as they do in the U.S., but I know that assumptions are dangerous so permit me to bloviate some more, and feel free to ignore me if you already know this. We begin with the premise that an accused person is presumed to be innocent unless/until he/she is convicted. Our standard in criminal trials is that the prosecution must convince the jury that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." This is different from the standard in civil lawsuits, where the standard is that the plaintiff (not "prosecution") only needs to show that his or her case is supported by "a preponderance of evidence" in order to prevail. The best-known example of this is O.J. Simpson (the former American football star). O.J.'s ex-wife and a male who was with her were brutally murdered. O.J. was arrested and tried for the murder. He was eventually acquitted. After the criminal trial was over, the family of the young man who had been murdered sued O.J. in civil court for something like "untimely death" or something like that. The exact charge doesn't matter. The key point is that, although O.J. had been officially found Not Guilty in the criminal case, under the weaker standard of a preponderance of evidence he was found liable for the young man's death, and the victim's family was awarded a substantial monetary settlement. So ... back to your criminal case and the insanity plea. In order to use an insanity please, the defendant first has to admit that he/she committed the act. There's no "You've got the wrong guy, I was across town when it happened." An insanity plea starts out with an admission that the defendant committed the act -- so the trial doesn't hinge on proving that. The defendant's entire defense (essentially) is, "I did it, but I was nuts at the time and I didn't understand that I shouldn't have done it." There are two aspects to an insanity defense. One aspect is the issue of competency: whether or not the defendant is sane enough at the time of the trial to be able to understand the trial proceeding and to be able to participate. So that argument is often the first part of the trial -- establishing if there even can be a trial. If the court rules that the defendant is incompetent, then there is no trial and the defendant is remanded to a mental treatment facility where he/she will be treated until such time as the shrinks determine that he/she IS competent to understand a trial. This issue may involve ordering the defendant to take medications, to which the defense may object. If there is no question of competency, or if the defendant has been treated until he/she is competent to stand trial, the trial would then proceed to the question of whether or not the defendant understood at the time he/she committed the act that the act was wrong or illegal. Once again, there will be testimony from dueling psychiatrists, with the prosecution's witnesses arguing that the defendant knew the act was illegal, and the defense witnesses arguing that the defendant didn't understand right from wrong at that moment in time because [reasons]. The testimony of the dueling psychiatrists can take up several days -- for each of them. The process is that one side calls its witness. The prosecution goes first, so assume the prosecution calls Dr. Jekyl. The first time the prosecutor questions Dr. Jekyl is called "direct" examination. When the prosecutor has finished, the defense attorney then has an opportunity to "cross-examine" Dr. Jekyl. Cross examination is not allowed to introduce any new lines of inquiry. On cross-examination, the attorney is only allowed to pursue points that were raised during direct examination. Perhaps in cross-examination the defense turned up a weakness or inconsistency in Dr. Jekyl's testimony under direct examination. The prosecution then gets another bite of the apple, called re-direct examination. This is where the prosecution gets to try to undo the damage done by the defense on cross-examination. On re-direct, the prosecution can try to clarify or explain away any inconsistencies or weaknesses in Dr. Jekyl's testimony. And, finally, after re-direct the other side gets a last chance at the witness, called re-cross-examination. Once the prosecutor has finished (rested its case), the defense starts. Now the order is reversed but the same sequence is followed. Now it's the defense that opens with direct examination, followed by cross-examination by the prosecution, then re-direct and then re-cross. Clear as mud, isn't it?
Addendum: More to the point of the insanity defense, there are two well-known cases in the U.S. that involved an insanity plea. The first was the mass shooting in Arizona in which then U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords was wounded, and six other people were killed. The shooter was initially ruled incompetent to stand trial. He was treated, found to be competent, and subsequently tried and convicted. The issue of forced medication was also involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting The other newsworthy case was a mass shooting in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. This case also involved an insanity defense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora,_Colorado_shooting
That's a lot of information to digest but equally helpful. I've been researching all aspects of insanity pleas and now I'm more focused on the timeline of how long from incarceration to the actual trial takes, and what is involved in the trial. Is it just multiple days of witness testimonials and evidence, direct and cross examination, and then the final closing statement and then the jury deliberation? I've studied up on John Hinckley Jr's case a lot and it seems like a straight-forward but controversial outcome.
I think you'll need to make sure the timelines in your book are believable. The timeline in your story can be on the low end, especially if it's in the prosecution and defense's best interest to have a speedy trial, but usually it's not. It just needs to be something the reader won't dismiss as too unrealistic. I'd say you are safe with maybe at least 12-18 months between arrest and sentencing but I'd research for something consistent with your story. Other factors can contribute to the length. There was a case in Chicago where a rapper hired people to kill his mom for insurance money. She was murdered in 2012 but he was just sentenced last year (February 2020) to 99 years in jail. I have no idea why it took that long, but he wasn't the actual killer. Maybe they needed to work out deals with those that testified against him. That wasn't a nationally high profile case, but it was one of the most despicable ones I've seen.
So I've gone from knowing absolutely nothing about court trials in the US to this. Here's a quick rundown of how I think it'll go. Please let me know if this sounds somewhat believable. Jenny Carlin was witnessed running over, and shooting a police sheriff in a small Washington Town. She's incarcerated and given a hearing with her appointed lawyer. Their deliberation ends up with Jenny admitting not guilty by insanity. Jenny is incarcerated from October 1988 until the court date of November 1989. Within that time she's given a battery of psychological tests from both the defense and prosecution. Seattle's prosecution believes Jenny was lucid and of sound mind and premeditated the murder. Meanwhile the defending doctor--and several suicide attempts while incarcerated--show Jenny is not of sound mind. The trial is to determine if Jenny really was sane at the time of the murder. The trial takes almost 8 days. Two of opening statement and the prosecution's psychological evidence. Another three for the defense. Three of direct examination and cross examination of the two psychologists (witnesses) with a final closing statement. Deliberation takes two days with a majority vote of not guilty by insanity on a jury of 12. Jenny Carlin is sent to a mental hospital, dodging the death penalty. Does this all seem believable? @Steerpike I'd love your input. I'm a big noob when it comes to court trials but I find them fascinating and a great facet of storytelling at times. I'd love to learn more to be able to apply it to my story.
I've always been under the impression that a unanimous verdict is required for criminal cases. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this be a hung jury?
I'm not 100% sure but a jury has to be unanimous if the jury consists of 6 people. But a jury of 12 doesn't necessarily have to be unanimous in order for a verdict to be considered. If I'm wrong than it's only a matter of swapping it to unanimous. I was curious if my example seems believable.
It looks like that used to be in the case in Oregon and Louisiana, but SCOTUS ruled split verdicts in those states unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. As far as I know, Washington has always required a unanimous verdict.
Awesome. Then I'll make sure it's a longer deliberation with it. Now I just need to make sure the rest of it makes sense. I feel like maybe I'm screwing things up but I'm not entirely sure how the trial process works in terms of cross/direct examination but I'm not going to go into a real-time breakdown of every aspect. But I'd like to know my idea is believable enough in terms of what's happening.
One more thing; what do you mean by Seattle's lawyers? I don't think municipal courts hear felony cases. If the crime took place within King County, then I believe the woman would be tried in the King County Superior Court.
I assumed that criminal trial cases would take place in the nearest city which would be Seattle. But the King County Superior Court sounds a lot more realistic. I'll have to give that a look.
Well, the King County Superior Court is in Seattle, but the crime would be tried on a county basis. Of course I don't know if the town is even in King County.
I imagined that the town was quite close to Seattle and I'm a fool. I forgot about the county basis instead. I guess that's why I put it so close to Seattle. EDIT: You were right. My fictitious town is within King County and therefore part of the King County Superior Court.
The pre-trial period is believable. Eight days (I assume you mean days in court, not consecutive calendar days) seems a bit short but, if each side only calls one expert witness, it's possible. However, a couple of points: First, I think it's more likely that the medical experts would be psychiatrists rather than psychologists. Second, you don't have the courtroom time line correct. You would have each side present their experts on direct examination, and then call them back for cross-examination. The prosecution goes first. The prosecutor calls a witness and conducts direct examination of that witness. The defense then cross-examines that witness. Then the prosecution can conduct re-direct examination of that witness, followed by the defense's re-cross-examination of that witness. The the prosecution calls its next witness and the process repeats. When the prosecution has presented all of its evidence and called all its witnesses, the prosecution "rests." That's when the defense begins to call its witnesses. Again, each witness in turn is subject to direct examination (this time by the defense), cross-examination (this time by the prosecution), then re-direct and then re-cross. Depending on the complexity of the case, each side's closing argument alone could take up an entire day in court. Further, in a murder trial I think it's unlikely that either side would limit their case to a single expert witness. I would assume a minimum of two psychiatrists on each side. Those would be expert witnesses. In the U.S. courts, expert witnesses are professionals, who are qualified as experts on the basis of their specialized, professional education and experience. The first part of each expert's testimony will be basic questions about his/her education and professional history. They can't testify as an expert witness until the court accepts their qualifications. (I've been through this -- I'm an architect, and I have testified in court as an expert witness on multiple occasions.) Expert witnesses are allowed to testify to their professional opinions -- and they are open to attack by the other side if they can't explain why their opinions are justified on the basis of their education and experience. An expert witness can only testify about opinions within their area of expertise. (I can be an expert witness and offer opinions about architecture-related issues -- I can't offer opinions about psychology, biology, chemistry, or any other topic not within the realm of my professional qualifications.) In addition to the expert witnesses, each side's case may also include "fact" witnesses. Fact witnesses may not testify about their opinions -- they can only testify to objective facts. If a person on trial is claiming a defense based on insanity, I would expect that one side or the other might also call fact witnesses to testify about how the defendant was acting before or after the crime. For example, in the case of the Aurora theater massacre, I believe there were fact witnesses who testified that the shooter had talked about killing people months before the date of the actual incident. For your story, there might be fact witnesses who might testify that Jenny had once dated the sheriff and he dumped her, or that she had spoken to friends about having a crush on him (or hating him because he had arrested her father, or ___). In other words, there would be some testimony by investigators to put into evidence the fact that she ran him over and then shot him. That will be brief since she admitted to it, but the facts of the crime still have to be entered into evidence for the trial record. Then, in addition to the experts' opinions and findings, there could be fact witnesses to help build up a case for either sanity and premeditation, or insanity supported by a long history of unstable behavior. A jury verdict must be unanimous to convict or to acquit. If the jury can't agree after sufficient deliberation, the judge declares a mistrial. At that point, the prosecution has to decide whether to try the case again, or to drop the charges and let the defendant go free.
I based the prosecution and defense on the John Hinckley Jr. trial in terms of there being only one psychiatrist for either side as there seemed to only be one for and against John Hinckley Jr. So how about this? Jenny Carlin's trial begins on November 27th 1989. The opening statement of the King County Court's district attorney is given to the 8 man, four women jury. The prosecutor is DAA Alex Hale. His expert witness is Dr Harold Bishop a psychiatrist who has spent 46 days interviewing and psychoanalyzing Jennifer Carlin's mental ability and state. Another witness of the prosecution is two witnesses who had a previous encounter with Jennifer Carlin before the murder on the outskirts of town. While haggard, Jennifer was responsive and polite and was curious about a local diner where she could eat. Another key witness is the victim's son, Martin, who witnessed Jennifer shoot his father up close. He was the arresting officer on the scene. Now the defense has Dr Ellen Hannigan, another psychiatrist of similar academics to Harold Bishop. There are several key witnesses before, during, and after the crime. With these witnesses and cross examination, evidence of psychiatric evaluation on both sides will most likely put the case up to 14 days. The opening statements of the prosecution takes a day. Same as defenses. Four days of prosecution witnesses and examination takes place. Another six are taken for the defense's key witnesses. It takes another day for each side's closing arguments. And then several days of deliberation by the jury due to conflict on the verdict. However a unanimous verdict is done and Jenny Carlin is shown to not be of sound mind. She is then indefinitely placed in Broadhurt Hospital. Does that seem more realistic? I'm not going to be going into real-time for the entire court but I'd like to know, with your information, if I've made it much clearer as a trial would go in King County?
I'm a little confused, I thought she killed a cop by running him over? How old is the victim's son? Depending on his age, his testimony may not be reliable. I'm not knowledgeable, but in the cases of adolescent witnesses, the testimony of the first detectives on the scene that interviewed the children may be just as important.
Jennifer Carlin ran over a sheriff Jacob Jones, exited a stolen vehicle, and then shot him point blank with a 38. snub nose revolver. Martin Jones is a deputy under Jacob. He managed to tackle and arrest Jennifer Carlin after she fires the round. He is the closest key witness and is 26 years old.
