The insanity defense is a complex and often misunderstood legal strategy, especially in high-profile cases like the upcoming trial of Jean Macean, accused of the 2022 stabbing deaths of a Daytona Beach couple. As the trial approaches, Orlando criminal defense attorney and television legal analyst Jose Rivas shared his expert perspective with Fox News on how the insanity defense works in Florida and the challenges it presents.

Understanding the Insanity Defense in Florida

The insanity defense is a legal argument in which the defendant admits to committing the alleged act but claims they should not be held criminally responsible due to a mental infirmity or defect. This prevented them from understanding the nature or wrongfulness of their actions at the time of the offense. “The court has already determined that Macean is competent to stand trial,” Rivas said. “That means that in the eyes of the law, the defendant currently has the ability to understand the nature and purpose of the legal proceedings against him and is able to assist their attorney in his own defense.”

Rivas explained the reasoning behind the strategy: “In using the insanity defense, the defendant admits to committing the alleged act but argues that he should not be held criminally responsible due to a mental infirmity or defect that prevented him from understanding the nature or wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the offense,” Rivas said. “In other words, he suffered a psychotic break. It’s called an affirmative defense, meaning the burden of proof is on the defense. The defense has to prove that was the case.”

Challenges and Misconceptions About the Insanity Defense

The insanity defense is rarely used in Florida—less than 1% of cases, according to Rivas. “It’s a hard sell to the jury. There’s a perception out there that the insanity defense is a kind of loophole or technicality that lets people get away with a crime,” he said. “But people do have mental health issues, and the law allows for that. The jury has to make that determination, but, again, it’s not an easy sell to a jury.”

One of the main challenges is the contrast between the defendant’s current demeanor and their mental state at the time of the crime. “While the defense is arguing that the defendant had this psychotic break and is pleading insanity, during the trial they can see him acting relatively normally, communicating with his attorney and so forth,” Rivas said. “And that’s obviously going to affect the jury, they are going to think ‘Well, he looks fine now’.”

The Role of Expert Witnesses and Jury Perception

Rivas emphasizes that the outcome of an insanity defense often hinges on a “battle of the experts.”

“The defense will have expert witnesses to testify that, while the defendant may look OK now, he was not legally sane when he committed the crime,” Rivas said. “And the prosecution will have expert witnesses insisting that there was no mental illness, that he knew what he was doing. And the jury is going to have to decide whether this man was in his right mind when he murdered these two people based on what these expert witnesses are saying.”

“The defense’s job is to present their case in clear, understandable terms for the jury. And it is important for the defense to stress that ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ does not mean the defendant just gets to go home,” Rivas said. “He could be sent off to a mental health institution, and statistics show that people will spend longer time in mental health institutions in this situation than if had they been given a regular prison sentence.”

Jose Rivas is a veteran bilingual TV Legal Analyst who has appeared on Univision, Fox News, Telemundo, and many other news outlets.