June 19, 2026
Stunning Reversal: Luigi Mangione Withdraws Psychiatric Defense
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed Just one day after attorneys for accused Unitedhealthcare CEO killer Luigi Mangione announced an “affirmative psychiatric defense” they withdrew it. There was a Thursday deadline for Mangione’s legal team to provide details of their defense to prosecutors, that’s when they gave the court a one sentence withdrawing their previous notice. Now the question becomes, what possible defense could Mangione’s attorneys be considering for both his upcoming state and federal trials?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. Did is Friday, June nineteenth? And what a quick and stunning reversal by Luigi Manngioni. On one day, he's essentially saying, yeah, I did it, but I was under emotional distress. The next day he says, ah, never mind, And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Say what, say what? The United Healthcare shooter is going to claim a psychiatric defense on Wednesday. On Thursday, he said, ah, never mind.
00:00:33
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't feel like that bodes well.
00:00:35
Speaker 3: Look, he's got a tough, tough mountain to climb no matter what from a defense.
00:00:40
Speaker 1: Standpoint, what do you mean the savyan's video of him shooting the guy?
00:00:42
Speaker 2: Correct?
00:00:43
Speaker 3: Okay, then maybe his uh what do they call manifesto? His diary where he literally maps out in details planning it and then doing it, and.
00:00:51
Speaker 1: Then the murder weapon in his best So you were saying.
00:00:54
Speaker 3: There are a lot of problems for his defense team, but this certainly does not help.
00:01:00
Speaker 2: Well, whoopsie, never mind.
00:01:02
Speaker 3: We didn't consider the implications because look, this is for his state trial and in the state of New York. This defense that I actually had never heard of before, an extreme emotional disturbance defense is only allowed in New York. You cannot use the same defense in federal court. And that might have been part of the oh wow, maybe we shouldn't do that. This could affect our federal case. But also you had the prosecution saying, show us what you got. They had a deadline on Thursday to show them what they got, and they said never mind.
00:01:38
Speaker 1: Okay. So I will start with an oops by the defense teams. Hard to understand that one, given who this defense team is. Okay, these are Diddy's lawyers, and I know Diddy's in jail, but he will be out in a couple of springs. Right.
00:01:54
Speaker 2: His release date just got moved up to February. I saw.
00:01:56
Speaker 1: We didn't ask seven twenty eight.
00:01:58
Speaker 2: It's February of twenty eight.
00:02:00
Speaker 1: Twenty eight. Okay, so his keeps getting moved up. He could have been life in prison. He will be out in two springs. So what we're saying is his lawyers know what the hell they're doing. Maggioni's lawyers, it's hard to imagine they an oversight say oh, maybe maybe we shouldn't have done that, but maybe that did happen. But the facts of the matter is that Robes this Maggioni case, which is going on in state and federal court at the same time. We're fascinated all by it because how are they going to defend the guy that everybody has seen on video shooting and killing this guy? Okay, then we got an idea of Robes on Wednesday at a hearing, and this is when we first heard about this psychiatric defense, and we said, oh, okay, this is where.
00:02:41
Speaker 3: They're going to go, right, because we're thinking this will be what it's it's shot. It's short of and we can we'll get into it later, but it's short of saying he was insane. But it is a way for prosecutors to lower the possible sentencing if he was convicted. But if you think about it, what would be the other defense? I mean, there there is no other reasonable defense to the point where, when you look at the evidence, I can't imagine, as just a person who operates with common sense, how they could come to any other conclusion other than the fact that he's guilty of sin.
00:03:16
Speaker 1: But you have to come up with something mental, You have to come up with a break. You have to put the healthcare industry on trial. You have to say he had some medical issues and had frustration with you have to do something. But they're not saying wasn't him in that video? Right, They're not using that argument. They're not saying, yeah, somebody gave him that backpack of a trains.
00:03:38
Speaker 3: I've not heard any suggestion, right. I mean I started to laugh when I even answered you.
00:03:43
Speaker 1: So, what is it they're going to do? They have to explain something from a what is it called here an affirmative psychiatric defense, as what they said at a hearing on Wednesday. They were saying, he's going through well again quote an extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the shooting. Okay, when they put this out on Wednesday, roads we found out about it, I sat up. I was like, oh, I am very curious about this. I'm like, wow, this is going to be some brilliant lawyering. Again that was it a hearing on Wednesday, right.
00:04:14
Speaker 3: We were actually like, this is going to be fascinating to watch how these lawyers try to defend a seemingly indefensible client with a defense I've never actually seen play out in court. So we were actually very I don't want to say excited, but fascinated and interested because of who these lawyers are and their incredible knowledge and expertise how they were going to attempt.
00:04:40
Speaker 1: To pull this off. That was Wednesday, a firm Wednesday psychiatric defense. And then on Thursday, which was yesterday, the lawyers were right back in the court room saying never mind, with not much of an explanation.
00:04:52
Speaker 3: Right, no, because the only thing we know is that Thursday, yes in fact, as we pointed out, was the deadline for Manngioni's defense attorneys to prove documentation of this defense. And so when the deadline was coming up for them to provide this information to the prosecution, we got a one sentence letter to the judge in this case and it said, the defense respectfully withdraws CPL two point fifty point one to zero notice at this time?
00:05:22
Speaker 2: Did I get that right? I don't even know how you wrote that.
00:05:24
Speaker 1: Yeah, No, that's the that's the technical legal whatever.
00:05:29
Speaker 2: Find it legal stuff that I need a lawyer to read.
00:05:32
Speaker 1: So it doesn't matter what you would have said, Nobody would have understood, got it.
00:05:35
Speaker 2: That's fair.
00:05:35
Speaker 1: You would have sounded brilliant. No matter what the boy mean authority. They're making a reference to this affirmative psychiatric defense, say, we are not using it now. So to your point, role, just as a matter of you need to have the state defense and the federal defense mirror each other, don't you. You can't have How are you going to go out there and have two different defenses or two different cases?
00:05:55
Speaker 2: Correct?
00:05:55
Speaker 3: And you know one of our favorite lawyers, Mark Garrigos, who also probably doesn't need any introduction, he has been the lawyer for multiple high profile murder defendants, but he actually said that going with this type of defense at the state could actually undermine their case with defense and they have to protect their client, not just in the state of New York, but certainly with the United States of America with the government's case. And like you said, these cases are literally being tried a month apart. I don't know how anyone could handle dealing with that because there are two different sets of rules and two different sets of charges, So you have to be mindful of what's allowed in one court versus what isn't allowed in the other. And so the November trial is September and the federal case is October.
00:06:47
Speaker 1: But they would his lawyers know all this stuff, So why the change why the move the deadline. They didn't want to reveal. That's a part of it as well. There were some stuff that had been under steal in court that the defense wanted to remain under steal. And part of that, Robes, was the fact that they had details in there about their defense that they didn't want to get out. Well it got out, well, well only that they were going to use it, But it's not out how they were going to go about it, what the defect was, or what caused the mental distress, So we don't know what direction they were possibly going to go. Why would they go this route? Like you said, Robes, all that evidence against them, what else you're going to do? But this would have could have dramatically decreased how much time he spends in prison.
00:07:29
Speaker 3: Absolutely, so this would have resulted in a manslaughter conviction instead of a first degree murder conviction. Manslaughter is maximum twenty five years, correct, so it could have been even shorter, and then murder would have absolutely been life without the possibility of parole.
00:07:46
Speaker 1: Only twenty eight twenty eight.
00:07:48
Speaker 2: Right, it's twenty eight years old.
00:07:49
Speaker 1: That's a significant chunk. That's a big difference. You still have a shot at a life at fifty absolutely the rest. So this is a big deal. But Rose, we talked, so what does this mean now and how is this going to influence a possible jury down the road? You have juries, don't you, Robes. They are are potential jurors who are watching the news every day.
00:08:08
Speaker 3: Well guess so that's why I was confused by this about face. It just looks messy, It looks sloppy, and it looks like you're trying to find something to defend your client versus actually having a real solid defense plan. It makes you as a jury even less well, actually it makes you even more sure of what your gut is telling you about what happened in that case.
00:08:30
Speaker 1: You know, I was saying it is more so by submitting this defense, you're saying you did it. So I haven't heard in all the back and forth they tried to get some evidence thrown out and this and that, they haven't just flast said yeah he shot them, but he did it. This was the first. This is an admission that he committed the crime. If you're going for this defense, you're right that being out there in public and now pulling it back, and now I get a jury summons later, and I'm like, wait, this is the guy who was said he did it right?
00:09:00
Speaker 3: Yeah, and are we doing here right exactly? Because that's so true. So yes, that potential defense is an absolute admission of guilt. And the only other thing we really heard about what Mangioni's attorneys have been trying to do was to get all the evidence thrown out, but that didn't work, especially that diary where he just detailed the crime as it happened before it happened, which clearly shows premeditation.
00:09:27
Speaker 1: So they're going to have to come out. I don't know how. I don't know what you do here. This was creative, this was good lawyering. And look, there's a reason that defense is available because I'm sure there are times and there are people who do have a psychiatric break. So that defense means I did it, but I'm not fully responsible because of a psychological issue, a legit mental issue. I can't wait to see what they come up with next. But Romes a lot of people hear about a psychiatric defense and a firm of psych chiatric defense. The first thing I thought, did you think it as well? It's like insanity?
00:10:03
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's what I thought.
00:10:04
Speaker 1: Actually fulked. It's a lot different. Didn't realize that either. But it is a lot different. It is much different. It is not what you think. Stay here, we'll explain the difference.
00:10:23
Speaker 3: Welcome back everyone to this episode of Amy and TJ. We are talking about the whiplash that Luigi Mangioni's attorneys just sent the courts into, and certainly those of us who have been watching and waiting to hear, how his attorneys were going to defend someone who we've all seen on camera shooting and killing healthcare CEO United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson on the middle of a street in the middle of Manhattan. And so what could possibly be his defense? Well, we thought we heard that it was going to be something that has been used very often, but an affirmative psychiatric defense and an extreme emotional disturbance defense. Well, they rescinded that defense yesterday, and look what do they have left. Insanity would be the only other possible option. It would appear, and that is a very very different defense than the one that they had suggested on Wednesday.
00:11:20
Speaker 1: I wasn't familiar with the psychiatric Again, I'm still struggling to get the name run I have to keep that pfminative. Psychiatric defense is what they call it, and most of us are used to hearing robes, whether that's in pop culture, in movies, or in some actual trials, but it's not used that much. And insanity defense, my client pleads not guilty by reason of insanity. That is the one. Even though the word psychiatric is in this other defense, that's not the one that sends you to the psychiatric ward robes. It's the insanity. These two are very different. If you're pleading insanity, you are arguing that you are not guilty. I am not responsible at all for what happened because I was insane. I was not in my right mind, and I cannot be held responsible. So yes, people who go with insanity defense. If you find somebody in in insanity, you have to find them not guilty. You can see a video of them shooting and killing somebody and determine they were insane, and that person is not guilty. Then they end up committed to a psychiatric ward until some doctor deems they're okay to be let out.
00:12:29
Speaker 3: So you still have a shot of getting out of the psych ward. But I would imagine most people who are facing life in prison without the possibility of parole. Would much prefer to be in a psych ward rather than a maximum security prison.
00:12:45
Speaker 1: Death row sounds worse than a psych ward where you might get to go out and look at the garden every now and again.
00:12:51
Speaker 2: And have people ask you about your feelings and how you're doing.
00:12:53
Speaker 1: That is what you do now. Again, you might be in there for years and who gets to say when you get out. But that is the difference rogues when you're doing the defense. He was talking about psychiatric you're saying you did it, but there's a reason for it. In Sanata, you're saying I am not responsible for it, all right.
00:13:09
Speaker 3: Because I actually have a disease. I actually have a condition that I cannot control, which makes me not in control of my actions, which makes me innocent. And so that is far different. And short of that, I mean, at what point, I don't know the answer to this. Do they have to put forward their defense. Can it just remain not guilty or do they have to give a specific caveat to the not guilty if it's not just your traditional not guilty.
00:13:37
Speaker 1: Yes, if it's going to be something like this, you got to give the other side time to prepare for. If you're just going to put on a defense and here are our list of witnesses, that's much different. They got to detail this what they're going after. So what's left, Robes, what's left maybe is to just go through what his background is, what his history is, what struggles he's had, what problems he had with the medical industry, and go forward just sympathy, go for sympathy in the jury of Yeah, medical company did it to YouTube, didn't they? They did it to you? And what about I don't know, but Robe showed to that.
00:14:10
Speaker 3: It's interesting because when you just said that, it reminded me of how much support this young man has from so many strangers, go fundme pages, marriage proposals. I mean, people look at him as a hero.
00:14:23
Speaker 1: Slow down, everybody. This is crazed behavior, every single every one of us. You me, sweetheart, you're more often than I am on the phone with somebody dealing with some medical issue, and you're trying to get life saving drugs and you got to get transport to seven people, and we takes two weeks to get freaking everybody has it. You're not going out and shooting somebody, So everybody can relate. But the problem is everybody can relate, and we didn't go shoot somebody.
00:14:48
Speaker 3: Correct And look, if he not that this would be justifiable in any way, shape or form. But if he had a story where his mother died because a healthcare company refused to give her a life saving surgery, yes, I think people you could possibly play on people's sympathy at that point, just like a father who went and shot a man who raped his daughter, Like those are moments where people can understand why you would it would rise to the level of wanting to murder someone.
00:15:14
Speaker 2: I haven't seen that at all.
00:15:17
Speaker 3: This is a very privileged young man who had the best education, who had full support of his family, and had financial means beyond anything that most people could imagine, especially people who have struggles with insurance and can't pay their bills. That was not this kid, And so I say, kid, he's twenty eight years old. I do think the sympathy thing is going to go.
00:15:40
Speaker 2: Splat.
00:15:41
Speaker 1: I agree, babe, don't. I don't think most people are going to be able to go yay, you hero, you stood up for the little guy. If you're not representing me as a little guy by shooting somebody, who's a father of two just walking down the street. That's not brave, that's not bold, that's not awesome, that's not cool. This is he flat out murdered somebody. Absolutely with any thing. I understand, he's cute, and some ladies out there sending letters and things like that. Okay, you know what, Fine, Fine have your moment, but we have not We cannot. We can have a conversation Robes about how the healthcare industry drives people.
00:16:16
Speaker 3: Mad and is responsible for people's untimely deaths.
00:16:21
Speaker 2: Without a doubt, drive.
00:16:22
Speaker 1: You mad, but not to murder. It's just you cannot justify it under it.
00:16:24
Speaker 3: You know, you just made such a good point, babe, Because he is attractive to so many people. Imagine if I hate to say this, but imagine if he looked like Harvey Weinstein, would people be rallying to his defense. Would he be the poster boy for I don't even know what it would be, but for justice for the little guy. No, how he looks has had a huge impact on how he's been treated.
00:16:46
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, yeah what if? Yeah, I won't Yes, you're right, I'm going to leave it. Folks who are keeping a close eye will see what's next in this case? What there seems to be again trialed and not scheduled tool September Robe. Just like we're getting a headline, sometimes even in days, but certainly every week, there's something major that happens with this case, and it probably will not stop. We keep it an eye on it. We always appreciate you spending some time with us on TJ, along with my dear Amy Robot. We'll talk soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. Did is Friday, June nineteenth? And what a quick and stunning reversal by Luigi Manngioni. On one day, he's essentially saying, yeah, I did it, but I was under emotional distress. The next day he says, ah, never mind, And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Say what, say what? The United Healthcare shooter is going to claim a psychiatric defense on Wednesday. On Thursday, he said, ah, never mind.
00:00:33
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't feel like that bodes well.
00:00:35
Speaker 3: Look, he's got a tough, tough mountain to climb no matter what from a defense.
00:00:40
Speaker 1: Standpoint, what do you mean the savyan's video of him shooting the guy?
00:00:42
Speaker 2: Correct?
00:00:43
Speaker 3: Okay, then maybe his uh what do they call manifesto? His diary where he literally maps out in details planning it and then doing it, and.
00:00:51
Speaker 1: Then the murder weapon in his best So you were saying.
00:00:54
Speaker 3: There are a lot of problems for his defense team, but this certainly does not help.
00:01:00
Speaker 2: Well, whoopsie, never mind.
00:01:02
Speaker 3: We didn't consider the implications because look, this is for his state trial and in the state of New York. This defense that I actually had never heard of before, an extreme emotional disturbance defense is only allowed in New York. You cannot use the same defense in federal court. And that might have been part of the oh wow, maybe we shouldn't do that. This could affect our federal case. But also you had the prosecution saying, show us what you got. They had a deadline on Thursday to show them what they got, and they said never mind.
00:01:38
Speaker 1: Okay. So I will start with an oops by the defense teams. Hard to understand that one, given who this defense team is. Okay, these are Diddy's lawyers, and I know Diddy's in jail, but he will be out in a couple of springs. Right.
00:01:54
Speaker 2: His release date just got moved up to February. I saw.
00:01:56
Speaker 1: We didn't ask seven twenty eight.
00:01:58
Speaker 2: It's February of twenty eight.
00:02:00
Speaker 1: Twenty eight. Okay, so his keeps getting moved up. He could have been life in prison. He will be out in two springs. So what we're saying is his lawyers know what the hell they're doing. Maggioni's lawyers, it's hard to imagine they an oversight say oh, maybe maybe we shouldn't have done that, but maybe that did happen. But the facts of the matter is that Robes this Maggioni case, which is going on in state and federal court at the same time. We're fascinated all by it because how are they going to defend the guy that everybody has seen on video shooting and killing this guy? Okay, then we got an idea of Robes on Wednesday at a hearing, and this is when we first heard about this psychiatric defense, and we said, oh, okay, this is where.
00:02:41
Speaker 3: They're going to go, right, because we're thinking this will be what it's it's shot. It's short of and we can we'll get into it later, but it's short of saying he was insane. But it is a way for prosecutors to lower the possible sentencing if he was convicted. But if you think about it, what would be the other defense? I mean, there there is no other reasonable defense to the point where, when you look at the evidence, I can't imagine, as just a person who operates with common sense, how they could come to any other conclusion other than the fact that he's guilty of sin.
00:03:16
Speaker 1: But you have to come up with something mental, You have to come up with a break. You have to put the healthcare industry on trial. You have to say he had some medical issues and had frustration with you have to do something. But they're not saying wasn't him in that video? Right, They're not using that argument. They're not saying, yeah, somebody gave him that backpack of a trains.
00:03:38
Speaker 3: I've not heard any suggestion, right. I mean I started to laugh when I even answered you.
00:03:43
Speaker 1: So, what is it they're going to do? They have to explain something from a what is it called here an affirmative psychiatric defense, as what they said at a hearing on Wednesday. They were saying, he's going through well again quote an extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the shooting. Okay, when they put this out on Wednesday, roads we found out about it, I sat up. I was like, oh, I am very curious about this. I'm like, wow, this is going to be some brilliant lawyering. Again that was it a hearing on Wednesday, right.
00:04:14
Speaker 3: We were actually like, this is going to be fascinating to watch how these lawyers try to defend a seemingly indefensible client with a defense I've never actually seen play out in court. So we were actually very I don't want to say excited, but fascinated and interested because of who these lawyers are and their incredible knowledge and expertise how they were going to attempt.
00:04:40
Speaker 1: To pull this off. That was Wednesday, a firm Wednesday psychiatric defense. And then on Thursday, which was yesterday, the lawyers were right back in the court room saying never mind, with not much of an explanation.
00:04:52
Speaker 3: Right, no, because the only thing we know is that Thursday, yes in fact, as we pointed out, was the deadline for Manngioni's defense attorneys to prove documentation of this defense. And so when the deadline was coming up for them to provide this information to the prosecution, we got a one sentence letter to the judge in this case and it said, the defense respectfully withdraws CPL two point fifty point one to zero notice at this time?
00:05:22
Speaker 2: Did I get that right? I don't even know how you wrote that.
00:05:24
Speaker 1: Yeah, No, that's the that's the technical legal whatever.
00:05:29
Speaker 2: Find it legal stuff that I need a lawyer to read.
00:05:32
Speaker 1: So it doesn't matter what you would have said, Nobody would have understood, got it.
00:05:35
Speaker 2: That's fair.
00:05:35
Speaker 1: You would have sounded brilliant. No matter what the boy mean authority. They're making a reference to this affirmative psychiatric defense, say, we are not using it now. So to your point, role, just as a matter of you need to have the state defense and the federal defense mirror each other, don't you. You can't have How are you going to go out there and have two different defenses or two different cases?
00:05:55
Speaker 2: Correct?
00:05:55
Speaker 3: And you know one of our favorite lawyers, Mark Garrigos, who also probably doesn't need any introduction, he has been the lawyer for multiple high profile murder defendants, but he actually said that going with this type of defense at the state could actually undermine their case with defense and they have to protect their client, not just in the state of New York, but certainly with the United States of America with the government's case. And like you said, these cases are literally being tried a month apart. I don't know how anyone could handle dealing with that because there are two different sets of rules and two different sets of charges, So you have to be mindful of what's allowed in one court versus what isn't allowed in the other. And so the November trial is September and the federal case is October.
00:06:47
Speaker 1: But they would his lawyers know all this stuff, So why the change why the move the deadline. They didn't want to reveal. That's a part of it as well. There were some stuff that had been under steal in court that the defense wanted to remain under steal. And part of that, Robes, was the fact that they had details in there about their defense that they didn't want to get out. Well it got out, well, well only that they were going to use it, But it's not out how they were going to go about it, what the defect was, or what caused the mental distress, So we don't know what direction they were possibly going to go. Why would they go this route? Like you said, Robes, all that evidence against them, what else you're going to do? But this would have could have dramatically decreased how much time he spends in prison.
00:07:29
Speaker 3: Absolutely, so this would have resulted in a manslaughter conviction instead of a first degree murder conviction. Manslaughter is maximum twenty five years, correct, so it could have been even shorter, and then murder would have absolutely been life without the possibility of parole.
00:07:46
Speaker 1: Only twenty eight twenty eight.
00:07:48
Speaker 2: Right, it's twenty eight years old.
00:07:49
Speaker 1: That's a significant chunk. That's a big difference. You still have a shot at a life at fifty absolutely the rest. So this is a big deal. But Rose, we talked, so what does this mean now and how is this going to influence a possible jury down the road? You have juries, don't you, Robes. They are are potential jurors who are watching the news every day.
00:08:08
Speaker 3: Well guess so that's why I was confused by this about face. It just looks messy, It looks sloppy, and it looks like you're trying to find something to defend your client versus actually having a real solid defense plan. It makes you as a jury even less well, actually it makes you even more sure of what your gut is telling you about what happened in that case.
00:08:30
Speaker 1: You know, I was saying it is more so by submitting this defense, you're saying you did it. So I haven't heard in all the back and forth they tried to get some evidence thrown out and this and that, they haven't just flast said yeah he shot them, but he did it. This was the first. This is an admission that he committed the crime. If you're going for this defense, you're right that being out there in public and now pulling it back, and now I get a jury summons later, and I'm like, wait, this is the guy who was said he did it right?
00:09:00
Speaker 3: Yeah, and are we doing here right exactly? Because that's so true. So yes, that potential defense is an absolute admission of guilt. And the only other thing we really heard about what Mangioni's attorneys have been trying to do was to get all the evidence thrown out, but that didn't work, especially that diary where he just detailed the crime as it happened before it happened, which clearly shows premeditation.
00:09:27
Speaker 1: So they're going to have to come out. I don't know how. I don't know what you do here. This was creative, this was good lawyering. And look, there's a reason that defense is available because I'm sure there are times and there are people who do have a psychiatric break. So that defense means I did it, but I'm not fully responsible because of a psychological issue, a legit mental issue. I can't wait to see what they come up with next. But Romes a lot of people hear about a psychiatric defense and a firm of psych chiatric defense. The first thing I thought, did you think it as well? It's like insanity?
00:10:03
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's what I thought.
00:10:04
Speaker 1: Actually fulked. It's a lot different. Didn't realize that either. But it is a lot different. It is much different. It is not what you think. Stay here, we'll explain the difference.
00:10:23
Speaker 3: Welcome back everyone to this episode of Amy and TJ. We are talking about the whiplash that Luigi Mangioni's attorneys just sent the courts into, and certainly those of us who have been watching and waiting to hear, how his attorneys were going to defend someone who we've all seen on camera shooting and killing healthcare CEO United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson on the middle of a street in the middle of Manhattan. And so what could possibly be his defense? Well, we thought we heard that it was going to be something that has been used very often, but an affirmative psychiatric defense and an extreme emotional disturbance defense. Well, they rescinded that defense yesterday, and look what do they have left. Insanity would be the only other possible option. It would appear, and that is a very very different defense than the one that they had suggested on Wednesday.
00:11:20
Speaker 1: I wasn't familiar with the psychiatric Again, I'm still struggling to get the name run I have to keep that pfminative. Psychiatric defense is what they call it, and most of us are used to hearing robes, whether that's in pop culture, in movies, or in some actual trials, but it's not used that much. And insanity defense, my client pleads not guilty by reason of insanity. That is the one. Even though the word psychiatric is in this other defense, that's not the one that sends you to the psychiatric ward robes. It's the insanity. These two are very different. If you're pleading insanity, you are arguing that you are not guilty. I am not responsible at all for what happened because I was insane. I was not in my right mind, and I cannot be held responsible. So yes, people who go with insanity defense. If you find somebody in in insanity, you have to find them not guilty. You can see a video of them shooting and killing somebody and determine they were insane, and that person is not guilty. Then they end up committed to a psychiatric ward until some doctor deems they're okay to be let out.
00:12:29
Speaker 3: So you still have a shot of getting out of the psych ward. But I would imagine most people who are facing life in prison without the possibility of parole. Would much prefer to be in a psych ward rather than a maximum security prison.
00:12:45
Speaker 1: Death row sounds worse than a psych ward where you might get to go out and look at the garden every now and again.
00:12:51
Speaker 2: And have people ask you about your feelings and how you're doing.
00:12:53
Speaker 1: That is what you do now. Again, you might be in there for years and who gets to say when you get out. But that is the difference rogues when you're doing the defense. He was talking about psychiatric you're saying you did it, but there's a reason for it. In Sanata, you're saying I am not responsible for it, all right.
00:13:09
Speaker 3: Because I actually have a disease. I actually have a condition that I cannot control, which makes me not in control of my actions, which makes me innocent. And so that is far different. And short of that, I mean, at what point, I don't know the answer to this. Do they have to put forward their defense. Can it just remain not guilty or do they have to give a specific caveat to the not guilty if it's not just your traditional not guilty.
00:13:37
Speaker 1: Yes, if it's going to be something like this, you got to give the other side time to prepare for. If you're just going to put on a defense and here are our list of witnesses, that's much different. They got to detail this what they're going after. So what's left, Robes, what's left maybe is to just go through what his background is, what his history is, what struggles he's had, what problems he had with the medical industry, and go forward just sympathy, go for sympathy in the jury of Yeah, medical company did it to YouTube, didn't they? They did it to you? And what about I don't know, but Robe showed to that.
00:14:10
Speaker 3: It's interesting because when you just said that, it reminded me of how much support this young man has from so many strangers, go fundme pages, marriage proposals. I mean, people look at him as a hero.
00:14:23
Speaker 1: Slow down, everybody. This is crazed behavior, every single every one of us. You me, sweetheart, you're more often than I am on the phone with somebody dealing with some medical issue, and you're trying to get life saving drugs and you got to get transport to seven people, and we takes two weeks to get freaking everybody has it. You're not going out and shooting somebody, So everybody can relate. But the problem is everybody can relate, and we didn't go shoot somebody.
00:14:48
Speaker 3: Correct And look, if he not that this would be justifiable in any way, shape or form. But if he had a story where his mother died because a healthcare company refused to give her a life saving surgery, yes, I think people you could possibly play on people's sympathy at that point, just like a father who went and shot a man who raped his daughter, Like those are moments where people can understand why you would it would rise to the level of wanting to murder someone.
00:15:14
Speaker 2: I haven't seen that at all.
00:15:17
Speaker 3: This is a very privileged young man who had the best education, who had full support of his family, and had financial means beyond anything that most people could imagine, especially people who have struggles with insurance and can't pay their bills. That was not this kid, And so I say, kid, he's twenty eight years old. I do think the sympathy thing is going to go.
00:15:40
Speaker 2: Splat.
00:15:41
Speaker 1: I agree, babe, don't. I don't think most people are going to be able to go yay, you hero, you stood up for the little guy. If you're not representing me as a little guy by shooting somebody, who's a father of two just walking down the street. That's not brave, that's not bold, that's not awesome, that's not cool. This is he flat out murdered somebody. Absolutely with any thing. I understand, he's cute, and some ladies out there sending letters and things like that. Okay, you know what, Fine, Fine have your moment, but we have not We cannot. We can have a conversation Robes about how the healthcare industry drives people.
00:16:16
Speaker 3: Mad and is responsible for people's untimely deaths.
00:16:21
Speaker 2: Without a doubt, drive.
00:16:22
Speaker 1: You mad, but not to murder. It's just you cannot justify it under it.
00:16:24
Speaker 3: You know, you just made such a good point, babe, Because he is attractive to so many people. Imagine if I hate to say this, but imagine if he looked like Harvey Weinstein, would people be rallying to his defense. Would he be the poster boy for I don't even know what it would be, but for justice for the little guy. No, how he looks has had a huge impact on how he's been treated.
00:16:46
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, yeah what if? Yeah, I won't Yes, you're right, I'm going to leave it. Folks who are keeping a close eye will see what's next in this case? What there seems to be again trialed and not scheduled tool September Robe. Just like we're getting a headline, sometimes even in days, but certainly every week, there's something major that happens with this case, and it probably will not stop. We keep it an eye on it. We always appreciate you spending some time with us on TJ, along with my dear Amy Robot. We'll talk soon.