Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Malvo Lawyers Plan to Present Insanity Defense
Aired October 10, 2003 - 08:09 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Another high profile trial that we are covering, the sniper case. When Lee Boyd Malvo stands trial for murder next month, his lawyers plan to present an insanity defense. They say the teenager was indoctrinated by John Muhammad, Malvo's alleged accomplice in the D.C. area shooting spree last year. And the lawyers say such an indication is a form of mental illness. Convictions could mean death sentences for both suspects.
Attorney George Parnham is familiar with the insanity plea. Last year, he defended Andrea Yates, the Texas woman who was found not guilty by reason of insanity after drowning her five children.
Mr. Parnham joins us from Houston this morning.
Good morning.
Nice to see you.
Thanks for joining us.
GEORGE PARNHAM, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good morning, Soledad.
Thank you.
O'BRIEN: Let's begin by clarifying the actual wording of the law. In Virginia it says this, "A defendant is insane if, at the time of the offense, because of mental disease or defect, he/she A, didn't understand the nature, character and consequences of her act; B, was unable to distinguish right from wrong; or, C, was driven by an irresistible impulse to commit the act."
So I guess the $64,000 question here is that seems to focus on understanding right and wrong. Indoctrination seems to go a whole other direction.
Can they link those two things together? What do you think the defense's chance of that is?
PARNHAM: Soledad, excellent question. I think we go right back to the basics and we have to, in this particular case, find a basis for mental disease and/or defect that will impair an ability to reason and, in fact, cause an individual to, for instance, not know the nature and quality of his or her act, and if they do, not know that it's wrong. So, I don't know the specifics of this young man's mental history, whether or not he has ever been evaluated before, whether or not he has exhibited signs of insanity or mental disease, regardless of whether or not he has been examined. But I think that's the key sticking point in this case and it's something that needs to be very carefully looked at by both the prosecution and the defense.
O'BRIEN: But it's a high bar for the defense, because first you have to show that there was indoctrinization -- if that's a word. And then after that you have to show that indoctrinization reaches the level for the insanity defense. I mean that's a huge hurdle, right?
PARNHAM: That is a very difficult hurdle. The insanity defense is a difficult hurdle in any particular case. It carries with it a great deal of baggage. The perception of the public is that in many instances the defense uses the insanity defense as a last ditch effort or a way to "get off." I happen to believe that the insanity defense is very appropriate in many instances where there is a disease of the mind.
The other danger in this case, it seems to me, is that we might get into an argument on the ideological thought of the individuals involved. And I think a mine field for the defense will be a tendency to compare the activities that occurred in these particular killings to, for instance, terrorist activities, the 9/11 bombers and make a determination as to whether or not those individuals fit the category of insanity.
O'BRIEN: One issue that you raised as sort of being late in the game in the insanity defense -- and, in fact, many people have said this almost sounds like a move of desperation. From the beginning they have not claimed they were going to go for the insanity defense. This is sort of new.
Is that going to be a big problem for the defense?
PARNHAM: Well, you know, not really, and I say that because there are statutory limits or statutory prohibitions concerning when a person can raise and can provide a notice to the prosecution of the insanity defense. In this particular case, I'm certain that the defense waited until the very last minute.
That doesn't mean that the defense was not, in fact, preparing for presenting this defense well in advance of the notice being filed. And the prosecution in all probability knew about it. Experts have been lined up, the young man's been evaluated. So I don't think that this really comes as much of a surprise to the prosecution.
O'BRIEN: All right, George Parnham joining us this morning.
Thanks for your time.
PARNHAM: You're welcome.
Thank you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired October 10, 2003 - 08:09 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Another high profile trial that we are covering, the sniper case. When Lee Boyd Malvo stands trial for murder next month, his lawyers plan to present an insanity defense. They say the teenager was indoctrinated by John Muhammad, Malvo's alleged accomplice in the D.C. area shooting spree last year. And the lawyers say such an indication is a form of mental illness. Convictions could mean death sentences for both suspects.
Attorney George Parnham is familiar with the insanity plea. Last year, he defended Andrea Yates, the Texas woman who was found not guilty by reason of insanity after drowning her five children.
Mr. Parnham joins us from Houston this morning.
Good morning.
Nice to see you.
Thanks for joining us.
GEORGE PARNHAM, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good morning, Soledad.
Thank you.
O'BRIEN: Let's begin by clarifying the actual wording of the law. In Virginia it says this, "A defendant is insane if, at the time of the offense, because of mental disease or defect, he/she A, didn't understand the nature, character and consequences of her act; B, was unable to distinguish right from wrong; or, C, was driven by an irresistible impulse to commit the act."
So I guess the $64,000 question here is that seems to focus on understanding right and wrong. Indoctrination seems to go a whole other direction.
Can they link those two things together? What do you think the defense's chance of that is?
PARNHAM: Soledad, excellent question. I think we go right back to the basics and we have to, in this particular case, find a basis for mental disease and/or defect that will impair an ability to reason and, in fact, cause an individual to, for instance, not know the nature and quality of his or her act, and if they do, not know that it's wrong. So, I don't know the specifics of this young man's mental history, whether or not he has ever been evaluated before, whether or not he has exhibited signs of insanity or mental disease, regardless of whether or not he has been examined. But I think that's the key sticking point in this case and it's something that needs to be very carefully looked at by both the prosecution and the defense.
O'BRIEN: But it's a high bar for the defense, because first you have to show that there was indoctrinization -- if that's a word. And then after that you have to show that indoctrinization reaches the level for the insanity defense. I mean that's a huge hurdle, right?
PARNHAM: That is a very difficult hurdle. The insanity defense is a difficult hurdle in any particular case. It carries with it a great deal of baggage. The perception of the public is that in many instances the defense uses the insanity defense as a last ditch effort or a way to "get off." I happen to believe that the insanity defense is very appropriate in many instances where there is a disease of the mind.
The other danger in this case, it seems to me, is that we might get into an argument on the ideological thought of the individuals involved. And I think a mine field for the defense will be a tendency to compare the activities that occurred in these particular killings to, for instance, terrorist activities, the 9/11 bombers and make a determination as to whether or not those individuals fit the category of insanity.
O'BRIEN: One issue that you raised as sort of being late in the game in the insanity defense -- and, in fact, many people have said this almost sounds like a move of desperation. From the beginning they have not claimed they were going to go for the insanity defense. This is sort of new.
Is that going to be a big problem for the defense?
PARNHAM: Well, you know, not really, and I say that because there are statutory limits or statutory prohibitions concerning when a person can raise and can provide a notice to the prosecution of the insanity defense. In this particular case, I'm certain that the defense waited until the very last minute.
That doesn't mean that the defense was not, in fact, preparing for presenting this defense well in advance of the notice being filed. And the prosecution in all probability knew about it. Experts have been lined up, the young man's been evaluated. So I don't think that this really comes as much of a surprise to the prosecution.
O'BRIEN: All right, George Parnham joining us this morning.
Thanks for your time.
PARNHAM: You're welcome.
Thank you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
