1 00:00:00,560 --> 00:00:05,360 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio 2 00:00:05,720 --> 00:00:09,000 Speaker 1: on Monday. The Supreme Court rule that states can essentially 3 00:00:09,039 --> 00:00:12,440 Speaker 1: eliminate the insanity defense in a six to three ruling 4 00:00:12,440 --> 00:00:15,920 Speaker 1: with an unusual lineup joining me is Jordan Reuben, Bloomberg 5 00:00:16,000 --> 00:00:19,759 Speaker 1: Law Legal Editor. So Jordan's the defend in here was 6 00:00:19,800 --> 00:00:23,239 Speaker 1: accused of four murders. What kind of defense did he 7 00:00:23,320 --> 00:00:27,560 Speaker 1: want to mount? The defendant, James Kaylor, wanted to mount 8 00:00:27,600 --> 00:00:32,960 Speaker 1: an insanity defense by showing essentially that he wasn't responsible 9 00:00:33,040 --> 00:00:36,479 Speaker 1: because he didn't know the difference between right and wrong. 10 00:00:36,920 --> 00:00:40,879 Speaker 1: What the courts have called the moral incapacity defense. How 11 00:00:40,960 --> 00:00:44,720 Speaker 1: is that different from what most states recognize as an 12 00:00:44,720 --> 00:00:49,400 Speaker 1: insanity defense? So he might have actually been able to 13 00:00:49,520 --> 00:00:53,440 Speaker 1: raise that sort of defense in most states, But unfortunately 14 00:00:53,479 --> 00:00:57,960 Speaker 1: for him anyway, he was prosecuted in Kansas, which, along 15 00:00:58,000 --> 00:01:01,320 Speaker 1: with a handful of other states, doesn't recognize such a defense. 16 00:01:01,360 --> 00:01:04,400 Speaker 1: And so that's the issue that wound up coming up 17 00:01:04,400 --> 00:01:07,640 Speaker 1: on appeal is whether he was allowed to mount that 18 00:01:07,840 --> 00:01:11,840 Speaker 1: sort of insanity defense or whether he was limited by 19 00:01:12,080 --> 00:01:15,880 Speaker 1: a narrower version of the defense allowed in states like 20 00:01:16,080 --> 00:01:20,880 Speaker 1: Kansas where he was prosecuted explain the differences of proof 21 00:01:21,600 --> 00:01:27,959 Speaker 1: between those two defenses. Sure, So, taking Kansas for example, 22 00:01:28,080 --> 00:01:32,440 Speaker 1: where the defendant James Kaylor was prosecuted here, at trial, 23 00:01:32,680 --> 00:01:35,759 Speaker 1: he would have been allowed to show that because of 24 00:01:35,800 --> 00:01:39,200 Speaker 1: any mental illness that he had that for some reason 25 00:01:39,280 --> 00:01:43,240 Speaker 1: that prevented him from forming the required intent in order 26 00:01:43,280 --> 00:01:47,120 Speaker 1: to commit the crime. Also at the sentencing phase, he 27 00:01:47,200 --> 00:01:52,440 Speaker 1: was allowed to present evidence of mental illness as mitigation evidence. 28 00:01:52,800 --> 00:01:55,760 Speaker 1: What he couldn't do, though, was show at trial that 29 00:01:55,840 --> 00:01:59,160 Speaker 1: because of his mental illness, the fact that he didn't 30 00:01:59,160 --> 00:02:02,200 Speaker 1: know the difference between right and wrong, he couldn't use 31 00:02:02,680 --> 00:02:07,080 Speaker 1: that sort of insanity defense in order to be exonerated. 32 00:02:07,960 --> 00:02:11,679 Speaker 1: So it was a six to three decision. It was 33 00:02:11,720 --> 00:02:15,960 Speaker 1: Elana Kagan who wrote the majority opinion, and she was 34 00:02:16,120 --> 00:02:19,560 Speaker 1: joined by all of the conservative justices, which is an 35 00:02:19,600 --> 00:02:23,880 Speaker 1: unusual lineup right. So, you know, in some criminal cases 36 00:02:24,280 --> 00:02:26,880 Speaker 1: and in some other cases in general, we do see 37 00:02:26,919 --> 00:02:31,400 Speaker 1: this sort of classic five for ideological split. We see 38 00:02:31,400 --> 00:02:34,720 Speaker 1: those lines skewed, and in fact, in most cases most 39 00:02:34,760 --> 00:02:38,280 Speaker 1: cases are not that sort of typical five for split. 40 00:02:38,440 --> 00:02:41,200 Speaker 1: And this would be an example of a case obviously 41 00:02:41,240 --> 00:02:46,480 Speaker 1: that doesn't align neatly along with that narrative. Now. Justice Kagan, 42 00:02:46,639 --> 00:02:50,160 Speaker 1: of course, is one of the four Democratic appointees on 43 00:02:50,240 --> 00:02:53,680 Speaker 1: the Court. However, in addition to some criminal cases not 44 00:02:53,800 --> 00:02:58,960 Speaker 1: neatly falling along these ideological makeups, she's also probably to 45 00:02:59,040 --> 00:03:01,120 Speaker 1: the right, if you will, on the left side of 46 00:03:01,120 --> 00:03:04,399 Speaker 1: the court. So now it's not the most surprising thing 47 00:03:04,440 --> 00:03:06,800 Speaker 1: in the world, but of course it is noteworthy in 48 00:03:06,919 --> 00:03:11,560 Speaker 1: some respects to point out, so explain what her decision 49 00:03:12,000 --> 00:03:16,920 Speaker 1: laid out. Sure, so, really the question, in one way 50 00:03:17,000 --> 00:03:19,600 Speaker 1: to look at it, was what sort of leeway do 51 00:03:19,720 --> 00:03:24,040 Speaker 1: states have in fashioning the types of insanity defenses that 52 00:03:24,360 --> 00:03:28,720 Speaker 1: defendants are allowed to raise. James Kaylor and other defendants 53 00:03:28,760 --> 00:03:32,320 Speaker 1: raising similar claims and people supporting him, their argument was 54 00:03:32,400 --> 00:03:36,400 Speaker 1: essentially that what Kansas offered, they said, they offered a 55 00:03:36,400 --> 00:03:40,240 Speaker 1: type of insanity defense, but by not allowing a defendant 56 00:03:40,280 --> 00:03:44,080 Speaker 1: to put his moral culpability on the line in terms 57 00:03:44,120 --> 00:03:46,680 Speaker 1: of using that to being able to be acquitted. By 58 00:03:46,720 --> 00:03:49,840 Speaker 1: not allowing that, their argument was essentially that these states 59 00:03:49,880 --> 00:03:52,920 Speaker 1: really don't actually have an insanity defense in the sense 60 00:03:52,960 --> 00:03:56,800 Speaker 1: that the U. S. Constitution allows. Now, the Supreme Court 61 00:03:56,880 --> 00:03:59,440 Speaker 1: said that that's not true the U. S. Constitution. It's 62 00:03:59,480 --> 00:04:03,640 Speaker 1: due process clause doesn't require states to allow this sort 63 00:04:03,680 --> 00:04:08,240 Speaker 1: of moral incapacity defense, and in ruling that, the Supreme 64 00:04:08,280 --> 00:04:12,559 Speaker 1: Court gave states leeway to fashion different types of insanity 65 00:04:12,600 --> 00:04:17,160 Speaker 1: defense systems along the lines of Kansas's systems. So certainly 66 00:04:17,920 --> 00:04:21,320 Speaker 1: victory for states looking to have more leeway and fashioning 67 00:04:21,360 --> 00:04:24,840 Speaker 1: their systems, and a loss for people who were advocating 68 00:04:24,920 --> 00:04:28,960 Speaker 1: for the more traditional insanity defense, which has been allowed 69 00:04:29,240 --> 00:04:30,919 Speaker 1: over the years and may well have been allowed in 70 00:04:31,000 --> 00:04:36,479 Speaker 1: most other jurisdictions. Decides states like Kansas. Justice Stephen Bryer 71 00:04:36,600 --> 00:04:40,800 Speaker 1: wrote the dissent tell us what his reasoning was. Well, 72 00:04:40,839 --> 00:04:44,080 Speaker 1: his reasoning is along the lines of what the defendant 73 00:04:44,120 --> 00:04:47,200 Speaker 1: here was saying that the type of insanity defense that 74 00:04:47,240 --> 00:04:50,000 Speaker 1: he wanted to raise, that's really the core type of 75 00:04:50,000 --> 00:04:53,960 Speaker 1: insanity defense, going back at least to the founding of 76 00:04:54,000 --> 00:04:58,520 Speaker 1: this country, and that the majority's decision essentially hollows out 77 00:04:58,600 --> 00:05:02,440 Speaker 1: any real insanity defense that defendants are allowed to raise. 78 00:05:02,680 --> 00:05:06,080 Speaker 1: That essentially, there isn't an insanity defense when you're not 79 00:05:06,200 --> 00:05:09,440 Speaker 1: allowed to put your moral blame worthiness on the line. 80 00:05:09,440 --> 00:05:12,919 Speaker 1: And it was a rather lengthy and spirited descent from Brier, 81 00:05:13,279 --> 00:05:16,720 Speaker 1: and he was joined by the remaining to a democratic 82 00:05:16,800 --> 00:05:22,039 Speaker 1: appointees Justices Ginsburg and Soda Mayor, and really his the 83 00:05:22,080 --> 00:05:25,159 Speaker 1: whole case really is a case about history. The majority 84 00:05:25,200 --> 00:05:29,920 Speaker 1: looks at history and says, based on history, this type 85 00:05:29,920 --> 00:05:33,520 Speaker 1: of insanity defense that the defendant wanted isn't so firmly 86 00:05:34,120 --> 00:05:36,440 Speaker 1: rooted in the nation that it's something that the u 87 00:05:36,520 --> 00:05:40,279 Speaker 1: s Constitution requires. The descent looks at history and it 88 00:05:40,360 --> 00:05:43,680 Speaker 1: comes to the opposite conclusion, saying that being able to 89 00:05:43,720 --> 00:05:47,599 Speaker 1: put one's moral culpability on the line really goes to 90 00:05:47,960 --> 00:05:51,159 Speaker 1: the heart of the criminal justice system. So it really 91 00:05:51,240 --> 00:05:55,360 Speaker 1: was a fundamental disagreement between the majority and the descents here. 92 00:05:55,880 --> 00:05:59,200 Speaker 1: The states that have this along with candidates, it seems 93 00:05:59,240 --> 00:06:03,719 Speaker 1: sort of region. It's Alaska, Idaho, Montana, and Utah. Any 94 00:06:03,760 --> 00:06:08,719 Speaker 1: specific why those states, Well, every state sort of does 95 00:06:08,760 --> 00:06:11,320 Speaker 1: its own things, so to speak. And Justice Cagan did 96 00:06:11,520 --> 00:06:15,520 Speaker 1: note that those handful of states do similarly have a 97 00:06:15,560 --> 00:06:19,920 Speaker 1: system like Kansas. But even beyond that, Justice Cagan noted 98 00:06:20,000 --> 00:06:23,520 Speaker 1: in her opinion that a ruling for the defendant Kaylor 99 00:06:23,839 --> 00:06:27,320 Speaker 1: would have required striking down those sorts of laws in 100 00:06:27,360 --> 00:06:31,640 Speaker 1: those states, not just that, but also some sixteen other states. 101 00:06:31,760 --> 00:06:36,039 Speaker 1: So every state has its own specifics in terms of 102 00:06:36,080 --> 00:06:39,120 Speaker 1: how it carries out its criminal justice system. And that's 103 00:06:39,200 --> 00:06:41,839 Speaker 1: kind of really the issue at the heart of the case. 104 00:06:41,920 --> 00:06:45,320 Speaker 1: It's a federalism question in some ways of what are 105 00:06:45,400 --> 00:06:49,200 Speaker 1: states allowed to do? What is the US Constitution which 106 00:06:49,200 --> 00:06:52,480 Speaker 1: sets essentially the minimum that states have to do? What 107 00:06:52,520 --> 00:06:56,119 Speaker 1: does it require? Now, the Supreme Court, the majority didn't 108 00:06:56,160 --> 00:07:00,280 Speaker 1: necessarily answer the question of what minimum is re hired 109 00:07:00,320 --> 00:07:02,840 Speaker 1: by a state. Really, all that the Court held here 110 00:07:03,160 --> 00:07:07,320 Speaker 1: is what Kansas does and its insanity defense system is 111 00:07:07,400 --> 00:07:10,200 Speaker 1: good enough. And it left open the question for another 112 00:07:10,280 --> 00:07:14,560 Speaker 1: day whether states can fully outright abolish the insanity defense 113 00:07:14,680 --> 00:07:18,080 Speaker 1: or whether a state that doesn't allow what Kansas allows 114 00:07:18,160 --> 00:07:20,880 Speaker 1: would be good enough. And so we would just have 115 00:07:20,920 --> 00:07:24,480 Speaker 1: to see, potentially in a future case, really what the 116 00:07:24,520 --> 00:07:29,600 Speaker 1: limits of the Kaylor case is. And Jordan's when the 117 00:07:29,760 --> 00:07:33,360 Speaker 1: justices initially took the case, did they say they would 118 00:07:33,400 --> 00:07:36,840 Speaker 1: decide whether states can abolish the insanity defense? And then 119 00:07:36,840 --> 00:07:40,720 Speaker 1: they came up with a much narrower rule, right, So 120 00:07:40,800 --> 00:07:45,400 Speaker 1: the question that was presented by the defendant Kaylor's petition, 121 00:07:45,760 --> 00:07:49,200 Speaker 1: was ken states abolished the insanity defense, And so that's 122 00:07:49,240 --> 00:07:51,720 Speaker 1: that's a pretty bold question and that got a lot 123 00:07:51,720 --> 00:07:55,840 Speaker 1: of people's attention now, And this happens sometimes in Supreme 124 00:07:55,880 --> 00:07:59,400 Speaker 1: Court's decisions. The justices they want to decide as narrowly 125 00:07:59,440 --> 00:08:01,960 Speaker 1: as possible, will at least they'll say so a lot 126 00:08:02,000 --> 00:08:05,320 Speaker 1: of times when they discuss cases. And in a footnote 127 00:08:05,480 --> 00:08:09,360 Speaker 1: in Justice Kegan's decision, she made clear that they weren't 128 00:08:09,400 --> 00:08:13,520 Speaker 1: deciding this bigger question of kennas States outright abolished the 129 00:08:13,520 --> 00:08:17,520 Speaker 1: insanity defense. All they were saying, according to the majority, 130 00:08:17,600 --> 00:08:21,680 Speaker 1: According to the majority, was that Kansas didn't abolish its 131 00:08:21,680 --> 00:08:25,240 Speaker 1: insanity defense here. What Kansas was doing here was good enough. 132 00:08:25,240 --> 00:08:28,240 Speaker 1: So in some respects it was a narrower ruling than 133 00:08:28,360 --> 00:08:32,680 Speaker 1: one that some court watchers perhaps expected when cert was 134 00:08:32,720 --> 00:08:36,400 Speaker 1: granted in the case. Some legal experts are saying that 135 00:08:36,920 --> 00:08:40,880 Speaker 1: this is basically the Kansas rule basically does eliminate the 136 00:08:40,960 --> 00:08:46,079 Speaker 1: insanity defense. Right. It's trompted an interesting debate, at least 137 00:08:46,080 --> 00:08:50,040 Speaker 1: in the academic community and among lawyers, of is there 138 00:08:50,120 --> 00:08:52,840 Speaker 1: really something you can call in insanity defense in a 139 00:08:52,920 --> 00:08:57,000 Speaker 1: scheme like Kansas is so. For example, Justice Cagan's opinion 140 00:08:57,080 --> 00:09:01,240 Speaker 1: pointed out the fact that a defendant can use their 141 00:09:01,280 --> 00:09:04,400 Speaker 1: mental illness to show that they couldn't form the required 142 00:09:04,440 --> 00:09:08,079 Speaker 1: intent to commit a crime. Now, sort of the rejoinder 143 00:09:08,120 --> 00:09:10,760 Speaker 1: to that, in terms of saying that that doesn't really 144 00:09:10,800 --> 00:09:13,840 Speaker 1: count for an insanity defense of any sort, is that 145 00:09:13,960 --> 00:09:18,080 Speaker 1: prosecutors in criminal cases have to prove criminal intent anyway, 146 00:09:18,160 --> 00:09:21,240 Speaker 1: and so calling that an insanity defense is sort of 147 00:09:21,360 --> 00:09:26,160 Speaker 1: a redundancy. It's basically just doubly stating what prosecutors have 148 00:09:26,280 --> 00:09:30,160 Speaker 1: to prove, and according to people who aligned with Justice 149 00:09:30,160 --> 00:09:33,800 Speaker 1: Brier's dissenting view, doesn't really amount to something you could 150 00:09:33,840 --> 00:09:37,480 Speaker 1: really call a true insanity defense. So what are the 151 00:09:37,520 --> 00:09:41,400 Speaker 1: implications of this decision, Well, it remains to be seen. 152 00:09:41,480 --> 00:09:44,720 Speaker 1: As we are discussing earlier, the Court was only talking 153 00:09:44,800 --> 00:09:48,880 Speaker 1: about Kansas's scheme here, and so if other states systems 154 00:09:48,920 --> 00:09:51,640 Speaker 1: wind up coming up and being pressed in front of 155 00:09:51,640 --> 00:09:54,160 Speaker 1: the court, they could wind up taking a sort of 156 00:09:54,200 --> 00:09:57,120 Speaker 1: state by state approach if the Court would examine the 157 00:09:57,160 --> 00:09:59,720 Speaker 1: particulars of every state. One thing that we can be 158 00:09:59,760 --> 00:10:02,640 Speaker 1: sure or of, at least according to Justice Cagan's opinion 159 00:10:02,720 --> 00:10:06,480 Speaker 1: is that the opposite decision and upending the upending the 160 00:10:06,520 --> 00:10:10,640 Speaker 1: status quo certainly would have resulted from the majorities you 161 00:10:10,720 --> 00:10:13,760 Speaker 1: anyway and having to strike down laws in more than 162 00:10:13,800 --> 00:10:17,240 Speaker 1: twenty states, So really, what the decision does is it 163 00:10:17,320 --> 00:10:20,640 Speaker 1: upholds the status quo. But of course that's super important 164 00:10:20,679 --> 00:10:24,520 Speaker 1: for descendants like James Kaylor and others in similar states 165 00:10:24,559 --> 00:10:27,040 Speaker 1: and trying to press similar appeals who are hoping that 166 00:10:27,280 --> 00:10:30,120 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court would say that more is required than 167 00:10:30,240 --> 00:10:34,640 Speaker 1: what Kansas in similar states have done with their insanity defensives. 168 00:10:34,640 --> 00:10:37,839 Speaker 1: Thanks Jordan's that was George Rubens, Jim Brooke Law Editor. 169 00:10:38,440 --> 00:10:39,559 Speaker 1: Yeah yea