What would Brett and Alice say? Burden of proof in Massachusetts
Ok so, I recently found out that in Massachusetts when the defence uses the insanity plea, the burden of proof automatically shifts to the prosecution, which changes the reasonable doubt perspective and favours the defence, right?
In most other states, the burden of proof remains with the defence - to prove their claims of mental defect negating criminal responsibility.
So I guess these jurors were just following their instructions, but I think in other states the prosecution actually would have convinced the jury the insanity claim was BS. The jury would have had to follow their instructions and find her guilty.
Do I have this correct? What would Brett and Alice say?