home

Live Opening Statements in James Holmes Case

Arapahoe County District Attorney George Brauchler is giving the opening statement for the prosecution in the trial of James Holmes. It's being televised on Channel 7 in Denver (thankfully no commentary so far.) Above is the streaming version from Fox News, also no commentary so far.

Why is the elected District Attorney trying this case personally? My guess: This is his stepping stone to a run for Congress or Governor. He is a very fluid speaker, he's got a powerpoint going but he's not using notes. His speech is free of "ums" and "ahs," and his tone is modulated and conversational. I didn't see the beginning so I can't tell what his theme is. He doesn't use trilogies to continually bring it home. Instead, he's doing a chronological presentation. [More...]

He says Holmes is supersmart and was manipulating his psych tests. He talks about his delusions and says they aren't really delusions.

He says he claimed he would make himself feel better and increase his self-worth by killing. That's not a delusion, a delusion would be if you think if you don't act, California would fall into the ocean.

The jury will see his google chats and emails with his girlfriend.

He weaves the stories of the victims into his discussion of his emails with his girlfriend, with the screen alternating between showing the emails and photos of the victims.

He says Holmes is devastated when his girlfriend broke up with him. He still works out twice a week.

An hour later: Brauchler is still going. I still can't tell what his theme is, he doesn't seem to have a phrase for it.

Update: The New York Times details the defense opening which I didn't get to see. It was given by two of his lawyers, Dan King and Katherine Spengler. From news reports: King showed the jury a video of Holmes in jail (no link due to autoplaying video.):

Holmes was found naked, licking walls, eating lunch meat between two paper cups. He sucked his thumb and cried.

King told the jury: "Look at the video, and you tell me if he would do this for notoriety."

All 20 doctors who examined him said he suffers from mental illness -- schizophrenia. The question is , could he tell right from wrong. The defense:
"The question is not can they think or plan but what are they planning for... is it an illogical delusional objective? That's the crucible of insanity, not planning," King said.
More from the defense statement on planning and mental illness:
"There is a common misconception that people with mental illness cannot plan," King said. You'll be told by psychiatrists that there is nothing inconsistent between mental illness and planning."

Several doctors will show the jury that Holmes is not faking his mental illness, King said. Every one of the experts has diagnosed Holmes with schizophrenic disorder.

< Radio Iran Claims Al Baghdadi Dead | Tsarnaev Defense Begins Making Case for Life >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    He's definitely (none / 0) (#1)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 04:00:34 PM EST
    highly intelligent. He graduated with highest honors with a neuroscience major and was accepted into a highly competitive Ph.D program and received merit based grants and scholarships.

       His intelligence that doesn't mean he isn't suffering from very real and very serious mental illness, or that he is "faking it."

     My understanding-- I'm sure you know this better -- is that CO allows an irresistible impulse theory in addition to the common law M'Naghten Rule (could not, by reason of mental defect, know  the nature or quality of his actions or , if  knew the nature and quality could not appreciate its wrongfulness).

      I have no opinion as to whether his mental state was sufficiently impaired to meet either prong, simply because there is a lack of info at this point, but I do think it is apparent his mental illness is sufficiently severe that the State should not be seeking the death penalty.

     

    With the amount of planning.... (none / 0) (#4)
    by magster on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 07:05:40 PM EST
    I don't see the impulse theory having any legs. The defense of a delusional goal shows that they are going for the no ability to discern right from wrong.

    Parent
    the defense expert will testify (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 07:38:46 PM EST
    planning doesn't negate insanity.

    "The question is not can they think or plan but what are they planning for... is it an illogical delusional objective? That's the crucible of insanity, not planning," King said.

    All 20 doctors who examined him said he suffers from mental illness -- schizophrenia. The question is , could he tell right from wrong. From the defense opening:

    Holmes was found naked, licking walls, eating lunch meat between two paper cups. He sucked his thumb and cried.

    King told the jury: "Look at the video, and you tell me if he would do this for notoriety."



    Parent
    That's the crux of the case... (none / 0) (#6)
    by magster on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 07:43:55 PM EST
    Does planning negate insanity.

    I think the defense got the best of the argument today, frankly.

    Parent

    Planning (none / 0) (#8)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 08:30:51 AM EST
      (and post-crime efforts to avoid detection when present) don't "negate" lack of criminal responsibility, but they are important factors.

      The mere fact a person is capable of understanding that an act requires preparation in order to succeed does not necessarily mean he is capable of appreciating the act's wrongful nature.

       A person can believe that there are obstacles (human, structural or natural) that must be surmounted to accomplish the act without believing the act is wrong.

       A person could even be cognizant that OTHERS believe his intended act is wrong without believing it himself.

      (This is just illustrative not based on known facts here). Consider a person who hears a voice that he believes is the voice of God instructing him. The voice "orders" him   to carry out a deadly  assault telling him it is necessary to thwart evil of some kind. That person could be found able to understand that he is killing people (the nature of the act) but not able to appreciate is wrongfulness. In his mind it could be the others who are  unable to understand what is wrong and what is right because they can't hear God as he does.

    Parent

    I don't buy (none / 0) (#2)
    by lentinel on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 05:48:00 PM EST
    the "driven by disease" mantra.

    What they are saying is that (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 07:58:54 PM EST
    he was not in control of his thoughts and actions and because he wasn't in control, he couldn't stop himself. Before you buy it or not, how about waiting to see what the experts testify to.

    Parent
    I think the guy was in control. He planned (none / 0) (#9)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 09:57:47 AM EST
    his actions, bought his guns and ammo, and died his hair clown red and whatever else in a perfectly logical manner.

    The law's definition of sanity may be the product of legislation and case law and precedent and more legislation and legal definitions and tradition and the rhetorical gawd knows what that glues it together into palatable sophistry...

    But if the result says he was sane when he did this, it's wrong.

    Would anybody bother disputing Holmes' insanity if the prosecutor did not directly benefit from a kill?

    Parent

    Actual yes (none / 0) (#10)
    by nyjets on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 10:24:51 AM EST
    The prosecutor may or not be directly benefiting from the kill.
    However, a lot of people will dispute Holmes insanity regardless.  
    I personally think that insanity is used way to often to explain acts of evil.

    Parent
    The defense, "by reason of insanity" (none / 0) (#12)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 02:35:52 PM EST
    is invoked in less than one percent of cases. And, of those, less than 25% are successful.

    Pretty small number, then again, any/all numbers are relative. Depends on which side you're on, I guess.

    Parent

    Actual yes (none / 0) (#11)
    by nyjets on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 10:24:52 AM EST
    The prosecutor may or not be directly benefiting from the kill.
    However, a lot of people will dispute Holmes insanity regardless.  
    I personally think that insanity is used way to often to explain acts of evil.

    Parent
    Sounds pretty batbleep to me.... (none / 0) (#3)
    by magster on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 07:03:01 PM EST
    but legal insanity is a tough burden.