#Manchester rule instanity plea trial#

Her mental illness was determined to have hindered her ability to differentiate the differences between right and wrong at the time of the murders.

#Manchester rule instanity plea trial#

At her second trial in 2006, Yates was found not guilty by reason of insanity. However, this verdict was thrown out due to a false witness testimony given by one of the psychiatrists. Originally, Yates was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison after her 2002 trial. Therefore, she had to kill them in order to protect them. She claimed that because she was evil, her kids were not righteous. All of the children.” When she murdered her children, Andrea whole heartedly believed that she was saving them from burning in hell. She also called her husband telling him to come home, when he asked if anyone was hurt, Andrea said, “yes. After drowning all of her children and laying them in her bed, she called for the police but did not give a reason why to dispatchers. However, Rusty thought it would be okay to leave her alone for a period of time in the morning to make her feel more independent. Yates’ husband, Rusty, was advised by Andrea’s physician to never leave her alone with the children. On June 20th, 2001, Yates drowned all five of her children in the bathtub shortly after her husband left for work, and one hour before her mother was supposed to arrive to supervise her. Andrea Yates was diagnosed with schizophrenia, postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis after the birth of her fifth child. Andrea Yates’ defense team famously did this in 2001. Be that as it may, there have still been cases of someone using a mental illness to prove their inability to understand right and wrong. This is an excellent example of someone who did not have a diagnosed mental illness at the time, but was still able to use the insanity defense. Instead of jail he was committed Iowa Medical and Classification Center to be evaluated and treated for an indefinite amount of time. This conveyed the message that he was unable to realize what he was doing at the time was wrong, thus his ability to successfully use the insanity defense. This included behavioral issues, epilepsy, attention issues, lying and believing in fantasy creatures with possible hallucinations. Many also testified that he had a long history of mental deficiency. These interviews were explained by the psychologist in his defense during the trial. He even gave a detailed description of his “battle against the goblin”, indicating that he thoroughly believed that is what happened. When evaluated by a forensic psychologist, Metzker-Madsen was reportedly unable to fully grasp the consequences of his actions. During the attack, he did not see Dominic, he saw an evil goblin. According to the defendant, he believed that Dominic was a goblin commander that must be killed. In August of 2013, Metzker-Madsen assaulted his five year old foster brother, Dominic, then drowned him. In 2014, Cody Metzker-Madsen was found not guilty by reason of insanity by an Iowa judge. While difficult to substantiate, there have been lawyers who successfully prove that their client did not understand how what they were doing was wrong at the time it occurred.

This is usually hard to prove, resulting in the insanity plea not being successful very often. In order to be deemed legally insane, you must be able to prove that at the time of the offense was committed, that you did not know the difference between right and wrong due to some sort of mental deficiency. Not to say that the individual might not suffer from a mental illness, but it is not a valid enough excuse on its own to deem someone legally insane. In fact, the individual does not even have to have a diagnosable mental illness. Many people believe that being diagnosed with a mental illness could qualify you for an insanity plea. But, there are a lot of misconceptions about it. Whether it be on television or in the court of law, it has become quite popular. The insanity defense is a popular term thrown around in society.