Hell, you just took it - relative to this oldster.

GBMI Defense = Guilty but mentally ill

NGBI defense = Not Guilty by reason of insanity.

Huge difference to the client between these defenses.

1. GBMI Defense. There are two aspects to the sentence: (1) court ordered mental treatment; and (2) the punitive sentence. Logically, the mental treartment comes first; and that fits in with the usual intake system for felons given prison terms, a pre-incarceration psychologocal examination. BTW: if you have a client or are faced with a witness who has done prison time, obtain copies of his psychologiocal examinations. After the mental treatment ends, the prisoner is then sent off to prison to complete the punitive sentence.

2. NGBI defense. No sentence; but only court ordered mental treatment. Once that ends, the client is as free as a bird. And, if the mental capacity problem is transitory (occured only at the time of the alleged offense), the client walks free from the courtroom.

So, the default rule is not to plead to a GBMI; unless it's a dodge out of a death penalty case. In fact, if the defendant pleads a NGBI defense, I would be well advised as a prosecutor to request a GBMI instruction to give the jury an option to send the guy to prison (eventually).

The NGBI defense, in its pure form, has some hurdles - ability to distinguish right from wrong. Of course, if the vet actually suffers from delusions and thought he was being attacked by Viet Cong, NGBI would apply in full measure.

PTSD could also come up indirectly in other circumstances.

1. Where a temporary loss of mental capacity is allowed as a NGBI defense - as in Michigan (Anatomy of a Murder), where the LT was acquitted. However, based on jury interviews, the jury found that his wife had been raped and beaten by the deceased; and that the LT was justified to take his retribution and defend her honor. So, there the proofs of PTSD (which were introduced) were a hook on which the jury could hang its hat.

2. Where intent, deliberation, premeditation is an issue - as in the Astan HT case where the gal was torched by the bad guy who was then executed by her bodyguard. PTSD could be a valid argument vs formation of intent, deliberation, premeditation. In fact, a fair argument could be made under the right facts that the killing was involuntary manslaughter.

3. Where the defendant's perception is an issue - as in self-defense situations. E.g., the defendant viewed the deceased as a hostile threat (even if objectively he might be viewed otherwise) and reactions kicked in, etc.

---------------------------------
Haditha is a timely citation, but involved a combat situation (not PTSD from events decades ago). LtCol Jeffrey Chessani's Board of Inquiry convenes today, December 2, at Camp Pendleton.

Polarbear1605 knows more about Haditha in his little claw than I know. Of course, you know the story about him. It began "in the snows of far off Northern lands ...", where the Marines found him behind a log as an abandoned cub. They took him back to Quantico, raised him and then made him an officer and gentleman. Truly, an inspiring saga.

Cheers

Mike