Aurora Shooting Trial

As I understand the reports, Holmes offered to plead guilty and serve life in prison. Because the state did not accept this pleading he is now "insane" and is pleading not guilty by reason of his insanity.( Was he insane when he offered to go to prison for life?) If found insane he will be sent to the facility in Pueblo to receive treatment for his "illness". If treated successfully he will be eligible for release, much like Hinckley, the shooter of President Reagan and the murderer of Mr. Brady.
If found guilty and sentenced to death he will go to prison and live there with Dunlap, the murderer in the Chuckie Cheese Shooting in 1993, also sentenced to death.
My druthers would have been for him (and Dunlap) to go the way of Klebold and Harris. I am interested to hear the opinion of others in this forum.

I hadn't heard that the shooter was willing to take a plea. Interesting. Doubtful that being put on death row in Colorado will actually result in his execution, hasn't it been decades since the last official Colorado execution?

The Defense proffered a guilty verdict, accepting life without parole with no death penalty. The DA did not accept the offer and chose to pursue the death penalty. Therefore the Defense pleaded not guilty by way of insanity. My question is " Was the shooter sane when asking for life and no death penalty and magically insane when the DA refused and decided to pursue the death penalty, the same penalty that the patrons of the theatre received.
This case has never been about guilt or innocence, rather it is a kabuki theatre about the death penalty.

I was able to listen to some of the defense this afternoon (thanks to iHeart radio and my generous employer who has provided me with a company smart phone and unlimited voice and data). The defense lawyer seemed to play the angle that Holmes was and is unable to control his own actions even under supervision and with medication due to mental state. Even so, the defense's opening remarks began with a preamble conceding guilt.

Given the amount of information that the defense offered up about Holmes long term mental illness I am left wondering how mentally ill does someone have to be before they have to be under supervision and/or institutionalized?

Let justice be served. Unfortunately I think Holmes will be sentenced to life instead of the penalty he fully deserves.

For me, justice is being locked up with other murderers and rapists were the ultimate justice will be carried out cheaply and swiftly. Just have to figure out which rathole prison would be the best fit.

The only question here is whether or not this killer can be held accountable for his actions or not, right?

So why not bring in the "experts" and have the jury settle that decision first? If the jury finds he is culpable, then the trial can proceed to the question of whether or not he should spend the rest of his natural life behind bars or await his date with a needle and all of the testimony from the survivors, all the crime scene photos, all the rest of the evidence of the crime can be presented.

With all of the crime scene evidence being presented before the question of his sanity is determined by the jury, all that is effectively being accomplished is a potential lengthening of the trial. If the jury finds him not guilty by reason of insanity, then there is no purpose served by subjecting the jury members to the photos of the crime scene and all the rest of the evidence pertaining to the actual crime.

Based on Colorado legal history, few are successful at getting declared legally insane. I hope that holds true on this case too.

Wrong Printsmith. The question before the jury is whether he was insane at the time of the shooting, not whether he was accountable or not. Holmes was the shooter, his defense admits that. Perhaps we are parsing words, accountable I take to mean responsible for the shooting, , if you have a different definition please provide.

Murder is homicide absent any justification or excuse. The first question that needs to be decided is was there an excuse for the homicide, did the accused commit murder or not? That, it seems to me, is a battle of "experts" in the field of the psychology and physiology of the human mind. If the jury excuses the homicides because the killer lacked the mental capacity to form the necessary intent to elevate those homicides to murder, then there is no need for the jury to hear from the witnesses and survivors of the acts that were committed that night. If they decide that murder was committed, then the evidence from survivors, witnesses, forensic experts and crime scene reconstructions of events become relevant to the jury, but not before then.

IMNTBHO, therefore, at this point, it is quite possible that the duration, and therefore the cost, can be minimized by saving the evidence of what happened until after the why it happened has been settled by the jury. In essence, a two part trial, if two parts actually end up being necessary.

I think that the jury should be spared the horror of seeing the aftermath in all its grizzly details that they won't be able to forget for the rest of their lives unless they decide that the accused committed murder. If they decide that it was murder, then they will need to see all the details and hear from all the witnesses and survivors of the crime to arrive at a proper and just punishment, but they don't need to see and hear those details until it's decided that murder was committed that day.

I met Judge Samour years ago through common friends and have talked with him on a number of occasions since. He struck me as highly intelligent while not putting up with any nonsense. He has an interesting life story, fleeing El Salvador at age 13 essentially in the dark of night to avoid death squads who were coming for his father. He made headlines a few years ago throwing the book at a road rager who deliberately caused a traffic accident that resulted in a death.