ATLANTA — No one disputes that Michelle Wierson crashed her SUV into a car stopped at a traffic light, killing a young boy.
But while prosecutors say she must be held accountable for her actions, her lawyers argue that her mental state at the time absolves her of responsibility. When she sped her Volkswagen Tiguan through the streets of her DeKalb County, Georgia, neighborhood in September 2018, Wierson said she was on a God-given mission to save her daughter from being killed. I believed it.
As he was driving at full speed on his way to his daughter's school, he collided with a Toyota Corolla that had stopped at a traffic light, crashed into an intersection, and collided with another car. Five-year-old Miles Jenness, a passenger in the Toyota, suffered a traumatic brain injury and severed spinal cord, and died several days later.
Wierson, an Atlanta-area psychologist with a long history of bipolar disorder, has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to charges of vehicular homicide and reckless driving.
Prosecutors are asking the judge to bar Mr. Wierson from pursuing an insanity defense. But if her defense is upheld, she hopes to present evidence that she was not taking all her medications. Defense attorneys argue that if the state prevails, the insanity defense in this and other cases will be completely watered down.
The Georgia Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear arguments in the case on Wednesday, asking whether Ms. Wierson's lawyers will be able to use an insanity defense at trial and, if so, whether the state could argue that she was not taking her medication. We plan to decide whether we can attempt a proof based on this. .
According to court records, Mr. Wierson became enraged at the scene of the accident, threw objects at first responders and the road, and was arrested. Witnesses said they believed Mr. Wierson was “under the influence of some type of intoxicant.” Her lawyers claim she became mentally insane and legally insane.
Mr. Wierson's attorney, Robert Rubin, called the entire situation “a terrible tragedy.” He said his client was “suffering the tragic consequences of her psychotic behavior, which was completely unintentional and morally responsible as she was mentally ill at the time.” Told.
Bruce Hagen, an attorney representing the Genes family in a separate civil case pending against Wierson, said his clients are “patiently awaiting justice.”
“The Geneses are very interested in Ms. Wierson being held fully criminally responsible for Miles' death,” Hagen said. “If the issue is that she intentionally stopped taking her medication, their position is that she claims temporary insanity brought about by the very predictable consequences of not taking her medication.” You shouldn't profit from doing that.”
Georgia law has two insanity tests, both of which relate to a person's mental state “at the time” of the alleged crime. The former states that a person is not guilty if he or she “did not have the mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong” in relation to the act. Second, if the person acted out of a “delusional obsession” that had “too much control” over his or her will, he or she would not be guilty.
Two experts, one hired by the defense and one hired by the court, found that Wierson met both of these criteria.
But prosecutors argue that it doesn't matter whether she can tell right from wrong. All that matters about the traffic violation is that Wierson was driving illegally and caused the boy's death.
The delusional compulsion defense applies only when “the delusion is related to facts that, if true, would justify the act,” prosecutors wrote in a brief, adding that “the delusion is related to facts that, if true, would justify the act.” “Even in the most liberal interpretation of[Mr. Wierson's]report,” he added. , her reckless operation of the motor vehicle was not justified,” they wrote.
Therefore, her mental state is irrelevant, they wrote, and the lawyers are simply “trying to provoke an emotional response and confuse the jury.”
Wierson's attorneys said in a brief that the state's argument is inconsistent with Georgia case law, arguing that the state “has shown that the driver's actions were of her own free will, forced her to make a choice, and “We must prove that it was not an external factor that overrode his will.” ” All of Ms. Wierson's actions that day were “the result of her paranoid obsession and inability to distinguish between right and wrong,” her attorney wrote.
If Wierson's insanity defense were allowed, prosecutors would argue that she intentionally stopped taking her medication and that her insanity was a “reasonable and foreseeable result of her own actions.” They argue that they should be allowed to present evidence showing what they did.
According to court filings, Wierson was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 2005 and was taking multiple medications, including lithium. Urine and blood tests from the day of her accident suggested she was not taking lithium as prescribed, and her brother said he had stopped taking lithium several weeks before the accident, prosecutors said. is writing.
Evidence of Ms. Wierson's medication levels is critical to helping jurors evaluate her mental state and the key to her insanity defense, prosecutors argue.
Ms. Wierson's lawyers maintain that she was taking her medication properly. The fact that lithium was not detected is evidence that her dose was too low, not necessarily that she did not take it as directed, they wrote. But even if she hadn't taken her medication, she said, “The law is clear that there is no exception to the insanity defense for noncompliance with medication or treatment.”
Allowing evidence of compliance would “confuse the issue” and unfairly cause the jury to judge Wierson based on his “conduct as a patient rather than his mental state at the time of the crime.”