[L98Fiero]

"I'm sorry but that just doesn't make sense."

I think it does. If it is the defense's claim that the defendant is retarded, the defense should have to back their claim with some evidence. It also seems it would be in the best interest of the defense to do so. The prosecution should be under no burden to prove that every defendant that comes to court isn't retarded.

[JamesP81]

The prosecution should be under no burden to prove that every defendant that comes to court isn't retarded.

That's a determination for the jury to make, not the black robes. If a defendant who is mentally competent claims he is retarded, I trust the common man sitting on the jury far more than the black robes to make the determination as to the defendant's honesty. The method of defense a defendant uses is not subject to state approval. Ever. That would be like the US using only methods of fighting wars that her enemies deem appropriate, or only building a wall on the southern border if Mexico approves it. Oh wait...