Everyone reconvened in the courtroom and the courtroom deputy informed the Judge that all parties were present and prepared to battle.
“All rise.”
“Let’s start with you Greenburg,” the Judge said after he glided into his chair.
Greenburg walked slowly and methodically to the center of the courtroom. As he walked, he stared down the prosecutor to let him know that he meant business. Out for blood. Vampire style!
“Although a defense known as ’diminished capacity‘ bears some resemblance to the ’reason of insanity‘ defense (in that both examine the mental competence of the defendant), there are important differences. The most fundamental of these is that, while ’reason of insanity‘ is a full defense to a crime—that is, pleading ’reason of insanity‘ is the equivalent of pleading ’not guilty‘—’diminished capacity‘ is merely pleading to a lesser crime. Here, there is not a lesser crime, and we are not seeking to prompt the court or the government to suggest one. In 1972, the American Law Institute, a panel of legal experts, developed a new rule for insanity as part of the Model Penal Code. This rule says that a defendant is not responsible for criminal conduct where he, as a result of mental disease or defect, did not possess ’substantial capacity’ either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. This new rule was based on the District of Columbia Circuit's decision in the federal appellate case, United States v. Brawner, 471 F.2d 969 (1972). Here, Mr. Andre Bezel was all but forced by a decorated Drug Enforcement agent to commit the crimes listed in the idictment. More importantly, there was a murder involved in this case that was committed by this same agent and Mr. Andre Bezel was framed for this crime.”
“Objection, Your Honor.”
The Judge looked down at Barnswell with a blank face. He hoped there was more.
“The defense is outlining facts that will be decided during a trial. His adverse comments in reference to the DEA are highly speculative and not an ounce of proof exists to prove this.”
“Your Honor, I’ll strike those statements.”
“Very well. Continue.”
“I am not arguing here that Mr. Bezel did not plan and commit some of the acts alleged in the indictment. I am arguing, though, that he was acting according to the impulses of a diseased or impaired mind. Also, that the chief cause of his actions was a federal agent that this country trusted to uphold the law and take down goons who sold narcotics. Mr. Andre Bezel had not acted of his own volition; his life was controlled by this pathological corrupted federal agent who just so happens to be held without bail at the FDC just like Mr. Bezel. What we want to do is request a continuance. We’re asking for sufficient time to have Mr. Bezel interviewed by a defense and prosecution psychologist and have a CAT scan performed at an area hospital. It’s been said that some of Mr. Bezel’s brain problems may have been caused by multiple concussions while playing football at Upper Merion High School. We’ve submitted the reports from Child Guidance to illustrate for the Court the importance of this time to gather material that would certainly aide the Court in deciding whether or not the defense may plead guilty by reason of insanity. That’s all, Your Honor.”
The judge shifted very gracefully in his chair and eloquently asked, “And to the timeliness?” That was the question of the day. “See, I am not hearing sufficient evidence that this material was not obtainable prior to two days of the commencement of trial. That bothers me and the record is just not filled with enough legal efficacy to grant this motion.”
“Your Honor,” Greenburg said and walked back to his seat. He grabbed a piece of paper, waved it in the air, and said, “Your Honor, we requested this material for the Children’s Hospital in excess of thirty days ago. The record dates back 10 or more years and were archived in a building not connected to the person that I requested the materials from. Apparently, the records had to be ordered and tracked down in order to be produced today.”
“I get that. I am just curious about the sudden arrival just before trial, Mr. Greenburg.” The judge grabbed a legal tome and opened it. He then said to Barnswell, “Your response.”
“The insanity defense reflects a compromise on the part of society and the law. On the one hand, society believes that criminals should be punished for their crimes; on the other hand, society believes that people who are ill should receive treatment for their illness. That does not apply in the case at bar. The insanity defense is the compromise: basically, it reflects society's belief that the law should not punish defendants who are mentally incapable of controlling their conduct. That does not apply here. The prosecution has an overwhelming well of exhibits and testimony that illustrates the defendant had control of his actions and while they may have been encouraged by another person, he had control of his actions. There is absolutely no evidence that suggests the defendant was forced to do anything that he did not want to.
“In 1984, Congress passed, and President Ronald Reagan signed, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act. The federal insanity defense now requires the defendant to prove, by ‘clear and convincing evidence,’ that ‘at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts’ (18 U.S.C. § 17). This is generally viewed as a return to the ’knowing right from wrong‘ standard. The statute also contained the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 4241, which sets out sentencing and other provisions for dealing with offenders who are or have been suffering from a mental disease or defect. Your Honor, certainly the defendant knew that his acts were wrong, and there’s no doubt that the defendant did not appreciate his crime. The tax evasion features of the indictment clearly outline how the defendant lived far outside of his means, along with Mr. Kareem Bezel.”
“Objection.” Ravonne stood and barked.
“Sustained, in as far as the prosecution cannot mention the acts of a defendant who is not at question. This is about the metal defect of Andre Bezel, and not Kareem Bezel, Mr. Barnswell.”
“Yes, Your Honor,” Barnswell said and smiled at Ravonne. “The insanity defense reflects a compromise on the part of society and the law. On the one hand, society believes that criminals should be punished for their crimes; on the other hand, society believes that people who are ill should receive treatment for their illness. The insanity defense is the compromise: basically, it reflects society's belief that the law should not punish defendants who are mentally incapable of controlling their conduct.
In the 18th century, the legal standards for the insanity defense were varied. Some courts looked to whether the defendant could distinguish between good and evil, while others asked if the defendant ’did not know what he did’. By the 19th century, it was generally accepted that insanity was a question of fact, which was left to the jury to decide. But I am asking for the Court to decide here, today, that this is an absurd tactic by the defense to turn this court into a circus, and the jury should not have to decide on this sort of foolishness.”
“Mr. Greenburg, do you have anything else to add to your argument?”
“No, Your Honor.”
“Perfect.” He clasped his hands together and said, “I’ll rule on this in the morning prior to trial. I hate to do this, but I need you available for a telephone conference at 7:15. That’s a.m.”