Does Taylor Schabusiness Even Understand Her Verdict
In a recent episode of the popular podcast “Hidden Killers,” host Tony Brueski engaged in an intense discussion with Neama Rahmani, an attorney, and former Federal prosecutor, concerning the convoluted case of Taylor Schabusiness. The defendant is notorious for her horrific crimes and erratic behavior, and the pair examined the intersection of mental health, legal intricacies, and societal perceptions in her trial.
Brueski acknowledged the severe mental health issues plaguing Schabusiness, pointing out that she was “not playing with a full deck” and that her drug usage seemed to have exacerbated her unstable mental state. He expressed concerns about the trial’s apparent misunderstanding of mental illness and its potential impacts on the defendant. Rahmani agreed that Schabusiness was a “very unique criminal defendant,” noting her violent behavior towards her former defense attorney and a psychologist evaluating her.
Rahmani noted that once Schabusiness was deemed competent to stand trial, arguing her case became significantly more challenging due to her lack of sympathy and her hostility towards her own defense team. “I don’t think she did herself any favors by attacking folks on her defense team,” Rahmani remarked.
Discussing the difficult task of proving insanity as a defense, Brueski questioned, “What is the bar for being competent or sane at the commission of a crime? If this one is not, what is?” Rahmani explained that every state has a different standard, but typically, the burden of proof falls on the defense. The insanity defense demands that due to a mental disease or defect, the defendant did not comprehend the consequences of their actions or distinguish right from wrong.
Rahmani pointed out that this is a high standard to meet, and jurors have grown more skeptical over time, viewing it as a potential “pass” for criminal defendants. He mentioned a notable shift among Wisconsin jurors and Schabusiness’s unlikable demeanor in court, which made it an uphill battle for her defense team.
Rahmani was asked about the frequency of such a defense’s success when representing a client with clear mental health issues. He underlined the two separate issues at play—insanity as a jury question and competence for the proceedings as a question for the judge. Rahmani explained, “You have all types. You have people who are pretty frail… But again, it’s a tough burden for defense attorneys to meet.”
Brueski raised concerns about Schabusiness’s comprehension of the trial proceedings, asking if the client needs to be “an active and competent member of their own defense.” Rahmani acknowledged that judges are generally skeptical, often suspecting defendants of feigning incompetence. He concluded, “At the end of the day, you have someone like Schabusiness who was clearly upset enough to attack her lawyer or her psych. She just might be someone who, frankly, is consumed with rage or have some other issue.”
This comprehensive analysis by Brueski and Rahmani provides an insightful look into the role mental health plays in the legal system. The conversation underlines the complex interplay between mental illness, societal perceptions, and legal defense, as shown vividly in the disturbing case of Taylor Schabusiness. The trial raises pressing questions about the justice system’s understanding of mental health issues and its ability to handle cases involving individuals with severe mental disorders.
Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj
Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
Brueski acknowledged the severe mental health issues plaguing Schabusiness, pointing out that she was “not playing with a full deck” and that her drug usage seemed to have exacerbated her unstable mental state. He expressed concerns about the trial’s apparent misunderstanding of mental illness and its potential impacts on the defendant. Rahmani agreed that Schabusiness was a “very unique criminal defendant,” noting her violent behavior towards her former defense attorney and a psychologist evaluating her.
Rahmani noted that once Schabusiness was deemed competent to stand trial, arguing her case became significantly more challenging due to her lack of sympathy and her hostility towards her own defense team. “I don’t think she did herself any favors by attacking folks on her defense team,” Rahmani remarked.
Discussing the difficult task of proving insanity as a defense, Brueski questioned, “What is the bar for being competent or sane at the commission of a crime? If this one is not, what is?” Rahmani explained that every state has a different standard, but typically, the burden of proof falls on the defense. The insanity defense demands that due to a mental disease or defect, the defendant did not comprehend the consequences of their actions or distinguish right from wrong.
Rahmani pointed out that this is a high standard to meet, and jurors have grown more skeptical over time, viewing it as a potential “pass” for criminal defendants. He mentioned a notable shift among Wisconsin jurors and Schabusiness’s unlikable demeanor in court, which made it an uphill battle for her defense team.
Rahmani was asked about the frequency of such a defense’s success when representing a client with clear mental health issues. He underlined the two separate issues at play—insanity as a jury question and competence for the proceedings as a question for the judge. Rahmani explained, “You have all types. You have people who are pretty frail… But again, it’s a tough burden for defense attorneys to meet.”
Brueski raised concerns about Schabusiness’s comprehension of the trial proceedings, asking if the client needs to be “an active and competent member of their own defense.” Rahmani acknowledged that judges are generally skeptical, often suspecting defendants of feigning incompetence. He concluded, “At the end of the day, you have someone like Schabusiness who was clearly upset enough to attack her lawyer or her psych. She just might be someone who, frankly, is consumed with rage or have some other issue.”
This comprehensive analysis by Brueski and Rahmani provides an insightful look into the role mental health plays in the legal system. The conversation underlines the complex interplay between mental illness, societal perceptions, and legal defense, as shown vividly in the disturbing case of Taylor Schabusiness. The trial raises pressing questions about the justice system’s understanding of mental health issues and its ability to handle cases involving individuals with severe mental disorders.
Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj
Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
