Sniper Suspect's Longshot Insanity Odds

Oct. 20 -- Insanity may be young D.C.-area sniper suspect Lee Boyd Malvo's best defense at his upcoming trial — but its success is still a longshot.

Earlier this month, defense attorneys for Malvo announced plans to use an insanity defense at his trial, scheduled to begin Nov. 10. Malvo faces capital murder charges for his alleged involvement with his older co-defendant, John Muhammad, in 13 sniper shootings in the Washington, D.C., area that left 10 dead and residents of Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., terrified.

Muhammad is being tried separately, and Malvo is expected to be at the court today when proceedings in that trial get under way.

In previous motions and hearings, Malvo's attorneys have argued that the 18-year-old was "under the spell" of 42-year-old Muhammad, who was said to be his mentor. At trial, the lawyers will try to convince jurors that Muhammad had brainwashed his young protégé to such an extent that Malvo was unable to determine right from wrong at the time of sniper attacks.

Experts say the chances of a jury accepting Malvo's arguments are slim, especially since most insanity defenses are unsuccessful. Studies have shown contested insanity defense have been successful in only 1 to 2 percent of the cases where it has been used, according to experts.

"Trying to convince a jury that somebody is not guilty of a crime because they didn't know right from wrong is just a hard sell, especially if you consider the crimes they're charged with," said defense attorney Steve Cron.

"A jury is not going to like the idea of letting someone off free or being let out of a mental institution after a short amount of time. They're not going to know the consequences — what sentence — a person faces but they're not going to like the idea of letting a guy go or a guy being able to walk out on the street in any way."

Inexcusable Crimes

That an insanity defense is most often associated with heinous crimes doesn't help its standing with jurors.