[Mind-numbed Robot]

... but he might be innocent, so let's make sure he has a fair chance to prove it, if he can.

He pled innocent by reason of insanity, an admission of committing the act but with extenuating circumstances. It seems to me that these pictures may work in his favor.

[Viva Le Dissention]

I don't know if CA still has this ridiculous law, but for quite sometime, insanity trials in CA were (are?) handled oddly: If a person chooses to plea "not guilty by reason of insanity" or mental defect or whatever, there are actually *two* trials. In the first trial, a plea of not guilty is entered. A defense can be raised at this trial except for mental defect. If the jury finds the defendant not guilty, case over, the guy goes home. If the jury convicts him, a new trial is held to determine whether the prisoner is insane. It can be with the same jury or with a different jury.

So all of that being said, assuming CA's law hasn't changed in the some years since I've known it, if this is the first phase of the trial, it is a straight determination of guilt--his mental capacity has nothing to do with it. But we don't know from this article, but food for thought, at least.