The wheels of justice turn slowly, and often, senselessly.
Nearly eight months after the attack which killed 12 and wounded 58 at a Colorado theater, the defense for James Holmes is still heel-dragging on what plea to enter. They do not want to use not-guilty by reason of insanity, because it simply does not benefit their client. You see, if you want to go that route, you have to turn over all documents and information pertaining to your client's past, including those records previously protected by doctor-patient confidentiality. And in the case of Holmes, it's a particular notebook given to a psychiatrist prior to the attack. So how to you get around the evidence that would clearly implicate your client and his premeditated actions? Challenge the constitutionality of the state insanity law!
Trying to make a whole separate issue challenging the law you're looking to take shelter under is a stroke of pure genius scumbaggery. Only a defense lawyer could complain that a law is not serving enough of their plans and try to have it changed to suit them better. I assume they'd prefer they could just plead insanity as a defense without having to present or prove anything. My legal scholar hat got lost many years ago when I opted out of going to law school, but my bullshit detector has been working just fine. You can't cry self-incrimination if you're claiming insanity, because 1) you have to establish the insanity, and 2) you're not challenging the act - just whether or not they were sane when committing it.
Sorry guys, either he did it and you want to say he was crazy, or he didn't do it. Pick one, and then promptly lose. And as usual, a giant big fuck you to any and every media outlet, reporter and source who continues to refer to Holmes as the "alleged" shoooter or "suspect" in the case. When you are arrested on site with weapons immediately following the attack and you deliberately booby trapped your apartment in case of your arrest, you get no luxury of speculation. He is the defendant, period.
