726 CHAPTER 16
“And you also knew that if you did that, it would be the wrong thing to do?’’
“Yeah, defi nitely,’’ Mr. Goldstein says. “I would never do something like that.’’
“Well, you did.’’
“I know, but the thing is I would never do it on purpose.’’
(Winerip, 1999b)
The questioning continues:
“You certainly agree,’’ [the prosecutor] says, “that you knew what you were doing and
you knew it was wrong.’’
“Uh-huh,’’ Mr. Goldstein says.
“When you pushed her onto the tracks to cause her death,’’ [the prosecutor] says.
“I see,’’ Mr. Goldstein says.
“No, tell me, did you?’’
“Oh, no. I’m sorry?’’
“Were you really listening to what I was saying?’’ [the prosecutor] asks.
“Oh no.’’
“Do you agree or disagree that you knew at the time that you pushed her, that it
could cause her death?’’
“I wasn’t thinking about anything about pushing,’’ Mr. Goldstein says. “When it
happens, I don’t think, it just goes whoosh, whoosh, push, you know,’’ he says, adding,
“It’s like a random variable.’’
(Winerip, 1999b)Assessing Insanity for the Insanity Defense
Interactions such as the one between Goldstein and the prosecutor may illustrate
that the defendant’s mental illness affects his or her testimony while on trial. But
how does a jury go about determining whether a defendant was insane at the time
a crime was perpetrated? The members of a jury rely on testimony about the de-
fendant’s mental state during the time leading up to the crime. Such testimony may
come from friends and family members or from witnesses. In Goldstein’s case, wit-
nesses testifi ed that he was acting strangely before pushing Ms. Webdale in front
of the train. Jurors may hear about a defendant’s history of mental illness prior to
the crime (as occurred for both Goldstein and Hinckley). Expert witnesses who are
mental health clinicians may give testimony or submit reports.
How do mental health clinicians determine whether a defendant was insane
at the time of the criminal act? What information do they obtain? They may interview
the defendant in jail and administer and interpret psychological tests (see Chapter 3).
However, such after-the-fact assessments of the defendant’s mental state should take
into account events that occurred after the crime and before the clinician’s evaluation.
Specifi cally, the defendant’s mental state may be affected by his or her experiences in
jail, medications he or she may be taking, decision to plead NGBI, reactions to the
crime, coaching from the defendant’s lawyer or other inmates, and even responses to
various assessment methods (Meyer & Weaver, 2006). For example, imagine that a
man killed someone when he ran a red light. After the crime, he becomes guilt-ridden
and depressed, even suicidal, requiring medication. Assessing his mental status in jail
may not shed much light on his mental status at the time of the crime.
Past psychiatric history doesn’t necessarily indicate a person’s mental state at the
time he or she committed a crime, but a history of mental illness can provide a context
for evaluating the person at the time when the crime was committed. In Goldstein’s
case, symptoms of schizophrenia arose when he was 16 years old, and he was com-
mitted to a state psychiatric facility when he was in college. Following this stay, he
had a lengthy history of mostly brief hospital stays, each stay lasting only until he was
“stabilized” (not actively psychotic), and he was then released to outpatient treatment.
However, because of a lack of state funds for mental health care, Goldstein’s outpatient
treatment usually consisted of almost no treatment. For most of the time he was ill and
while an outpatient, he did not have close supervision or monitoring and did not reli-
ably take his medication (Kleinfeld & Roane, 1999). He would eventually deteriorate
to the point where he needed to be hospitalized, was stabilized and released again, and
then the cycle would be repeated—a process often referred to as a “revolving door.”