Introduction
It is hard to disagree that various motifs, attitudes, and views may influence and strengthen one’s ability to hurt other people. What is more, an individual’s mental condition can also play a significant role in the development of their amoral and sociopathic intentions. For example, it may be dangerous for persons with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or paranoia not undergoing any treatment to be around other people because the risk of aggressive and violent actions and impulses increases. In Gena Spero vs. Commonwealth, the court found the defendant to be guilty of murder, and it is believed that precisely her unstable mental state (Talbot, 1999). At the same time, one might agree that her lawyer’s tactic was still effective, and it may be insightful to assess it.
Gena Spero’s Defense Attorney’s Strategies
It is possible to say that Steven Colella, the lawyer of Gena Spero, used several reasonings to prove her challenging mental state and make sure she avoids a murder conviction or at least gets less severe punishment. Generally, one of Colella’s goals was to prove that Spero was not able to be legally responsible for what had happened to the victim, Gina Sindoni. The lawyer attempted to indicate that the nature of Sindoni’s strangling was accidental and that it was never a murder. For instance, Colella stated that “Sindoni died from a ‘sexual misadventure’,” meaning that it was not Spero’s purpose to kill Gina, and it probably was challenging or impossible to avoid the accident (Talbot, 1999, p. 3). Further, one of the main statements of the lawyer was that the defendant was not competent to stand trial and understand the proceedings due to her unstable mental conditions (Talbot, 1999). To prove that, Colella provided evidence and reasoning, which was actually quite impressive.
First of all, the defense attorney emphasized the side effects and inefficiency of medications Gena was taking, and precisely her withdrawal and consequent deterioration of her mental state proved her incompetence and partial insanity. Therefore, in his interviews, Colella “said part of her defense will include the argument that her diminished mental capacity prevented her from being criminally responsible” (Talbot, 1999, p. 1). Second, Colella also wanted to ensure that the jury believed in his client’s mental disability. This is why he emphasized that it was never possible for any individual to fake their disease for fifteen years and be locked up in a mental institution. Finally, when Spero was found competent to stand a trial, her insanity at the moment of murder was proved, and she managed to receive a less strict punishment.
My Views on the Selected Defense Strategies
In my opinion, the strategies selected by Steven Colella were quite effective and adequate. Notwithstanding the fact that Spero eventually pleaded guilty to murder, the overall defense process brought specific positive results. Thus, in 1983, when the accident happened, Gena was charged with first-degree murder, an intentional and premeditated killing that could have resulted in imprisonment without parole or even a death sentence. First-degree murders are extremely serious, and it is a great achievement that Spero was found guilty of second-degree killing and was even announced to be eligible for parole in two years (Talbot, 1999). It means that the lawyer managed to prove Spero’s partial insanity and the somewhat accidental nature of Sindoni’s strangling. Further, I would also like to assess Colella’s successful attempt to withdraw Gena’s medications to allow the jury to see her actual mental state and incompetence. Precisely this move resulted in such an extended trial, but the lawyer also achieved a more prolonged treatment and a less severe punishment for Spero.
Generally, I might state that I agree with the reasonings and strategies selected by the defense attorney. Colello probably understood that he could never prove his client’s innocence and did his best to improve her image in the eyes of the jury and make sure she was perceived as an insane person who never planned to kill Sindoni. Indeed, as stated by Levinson (1989), Colella mentioned that “only without the drugs would a jury see her insanity unmasked, accurately reflecting his client’s condition the day Sindoni was killed” (para. 5). This tactic was called unusual and even unethical, but it is backed “with a 1981 decision by the state Supreme Judicial Court that a psychiatric patient could refuse medication” (Levinson, 1989, para. 10). As a result, I support the strategy selected by Colello and would myself adopt some of his tactics if I had to represent Spero in court.
How I Would Represent Gena
Since I agree with Colello’s methods of proving Spero’s incompetence and insanity, I would also base the defense process on these two concepts. In other words, I would emphasize the unstable mental state of Gena and prove that she was not healthier and more adequate when Sindoni was murdered. Due to various proofs and types of evidence, including Spero’s own alleged confession (“I choked the dirty bitch and put her in the bathtub”), I would focus on getting a less strict punishment instead of proving her not guilty (Talbot, 1999, p. 1). Nevertheless, since it was medically supported that Gena suffered from hallucinations and other severe symptoms, I would probably try to prove that Gena never killed her friend but only saw her being strangled and made the story up. She was unreliable in distinguishing reality from her hallucinations, which is why she probably told her friend’s father that she had murdered Gina.
At the same time, if my focus would be on making the unavoidable punishment less strict, it would be effective to conduct some tests and use their results to establish a solid defense. For instance, the Durham Test “asserts that the criminal defendant would not have committed the crime ‘but for’ their mental disease, of which their crime was a product” (“Insanity Defenses,” n.d., para. 11). This test would prove that Sindoni was murdered only because of Spero’s dangerous mental illnesses, but she cannot be severely punished for this. Another useful tool would be the American Law Institute Test – it would probably highlight the defendant’s inability to understand the wrongfulness and danger of her actions, as well as control them (“Insanity Defenses,” n.d.). As a result, the two tests and an emphasis on Spero’s hallucinations would help me to get leniency from the court for the defendant.
Conclusion
To draw a conclusion, one may say that achieving a less desired outcome is usually better than losing. In the case of Gena Spero, it was probably never possible for the lawyer to prove her innocence. Nevertheless, Colello managed to virtually use the terms ‘competence’ and ‘insanity’ to postpone the trial, highlight Spero’s unstable mental state and uncontrolled actions, and achieve a less strict punishment for her, which is why his strategy may be considered effective.
References
Insanity defenses. (n.d.). Legal Match. Web.
Levinson, A. (1989). Murder trial avoided by unusual tactic. AP News. Web.
Talbot, D. (1999). Sixteen years after murder, suspect ruled competent will stand trial. Boston Herald.