Defense asking to include in their theory of defense that they believe the "subtle" signs of insanity were appearing earlier in the defendant's life. Judge and prosecution say that is more appropriate for closing argument
Defense wants to insert an assertion that planning does not have bearing on insanity. Orman says prosecution objects to it as argumentative. Judge agrees
Judge grants word change to asserts
Judge proposes this compromise, but the defense didn't like it: "the defendant asserts that his mental illness rose to the level of insanity on July 20, 2012
and that therefore he is not guilty of the crimes charged"
Judge comes back, replies by saying "causation is not the question"
"It isn't whether mental illness cause the crime or not. mental illness may have been a case but that doesn't mean he is insane" Judge says
Judge says he is very concerned about a "proximate cause" concept and says they'd have to argue it during closing argument instead
Judge says that based on case law he is allowing a lot more in this theory of instruction
Defense declines Judge's offer to add the sentence quoted below
They'll skip that line entirely