I was getting at the argument phase. I realize this specific case only applies to sentencing, but it seems like it could be a bellweather for the PTSD issue in general to be more prevalent in all phases of trials. I think prosecutors, fearing that juries will be sympathetic to PTSD, will be trying like hell to prevent the defense expert testimony from uttering any phrase that would clue the jury in to the fact that the defendant is a veteran and served in combat. I suspect they will argue that the mere mention of "PTSD" will make the jury overly sympathetic and argue instead that the expert can only refer to a mental condition brought about by a prior (unnamed) traumatic experience.
I'm a little rusty on my criminal law, but isn't this the GBMI defense? It may be the ideal plea.
I don't know. I'm thinking of the trial for the Haditha Marines. One of the jurors was quoted as saying that he didn't think he had the right to question their actions in combat. That, to me, suggests that jurors are willing to ignore or reject facts if they simply have an aversion to seeing a veteran punished, possibly because they view him/her as a victim. Unforunately, many, many people do view our veterans as victims.
Again, rusty on my criminal law, but isn't that the NGBI defense? That might be an ideal plea.
Bookmarks