I think you did good, Bill.

Riding the work the other morning, I heard the defense arguments for Lynndie England. Her defense argued she was weak-minded (learning disabilities) and taken advantage of by a boyfriend bent on mistreating the detainees.

Uh huh.

I think one of the surest signs of insanity is that the client does not want you to plead insanity....I agree with Cowtown Pattie: you did the right thing. Woman probably needs to be institutionalized.

As for Lyndie: I can half buy her story. How many young people have been lured into lapses by their glands? Still, I know one sociopath who tries to use ADD to justify his sexual predation.

Lawyers must be experts in every issue they discuss. If the case is about plumbing, they're expert plumbers. If it's about dna testing, they're dna experts. If it's about competency, they're psychiatrists. There's no line between "sane" and "otherwise." If you can listen to her story and it makes sense, giving her a colorable defense, then I think you need to present it on her behalf. if your expert opinion is that you don't buy it and neither will a jury of her peers, you are obliged to defend her as best you can in spite of her own erroneous strategic suggestions.

if they could only be "guilty but incompetent." Then again, who would remain free?