Comments about ‘Witnesses describe Mitchell as intelligent but controlling’

I'm pretty sure it's Daniel Peterson in all instances.

Seems he's sane enough to know that it's the Christmas season, since he sang Christmas hymns. Evidence IMO that he is playing the system, he is self aware as his selection of songs shows. A master con IMO, how much longer will Mitchell continue to con the justice system? Seems he was sane enough to fool LE from SLCPD to the FBI, and almost committed the prefect crime. IMO he needs to here the jury foreman state we find the defendant guilty!

What a joke! He is sane and the creeps trying to protect the rapist from the consequences he deserves for money are also letting the justice system down for their pretty penny. This is seriously disturbing and Mitchell knows exactly what he is doing. What a joke! Wake up, put the sane man on the stand and if he balks, put him away for the maximum time! Its not insanity to sing to avoid incriminating evidence, it's smarts! Come on, does no one stand for justice anymore, what more evidence do you need?

First of all nobody is required to take the witness stand in a trial where they are being charged with a crime. Do you only want due process for people you like ? Mitchell will eventually have his day in court . He is locked up and thats all that matters anyway.

All we need is another prophet. Oh Geez what next. That picture with the flowing beard resembles olden day prophets. He just needs a time adjustment.

If Daniel Peterson is the witness for the prosecution, I fear for their case.

Wow. A man writes an elaborate book containing whole passages of existing scripture apparently without references material a seemingly impossible task. He claims to be a prophet and claims to live a higher law of polygamy. Why does this all sound so familiar? Hmmmm.

Just hang him now! Get it over with.

he has the christmas spirit. Hilarious. Did he sing Frosty the Snowman?

History Repeated,

Just one teeny-weeny difference: Joseph Smith did not kidnap a little girl, chain her to a tree like a dog, physically & mentally abuse her, and rape her repeatedly at will for over nine months.

Just thought I'd remind you that there are a FEW things this nut did that Joseph Smith did NOT do. You know, little things like KIDNAPPING, ABUSE AND RAPE.

Am I the only one who thinks this guy is innocent?

He is a mean one. Poor Elizabeth and everyone else that he had influence over. Force is not from God.

There seems to be a common misconception that insanity equally affects all of a person's mental capacities. That is not often true. A person can suffer from a delusion that makes him believe he is a prophet (or Batman or Elvis, for that matter) and yet be able to speak and write coherently.

For anyone familiar with the Bible (or the Book of Mormon), it's a fairly simple exercise to write in pseudo-scriptural prose, sprinkling it with familiar Biblical quotations, verbatim or paraphrased.

In fact, I think I'll give it a shot right now, without consulting anything for help:

Hearken and hear, o ye people of the earth, and give ear unto the words that I the Lord speak unto you regarding the thing that is called among you the Deseret News Comment Page. For it is not pleasing unto me that ye should persist in the spirit of contention, for it is the devil that stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger one against another, and such is not of me. Therefore, judge ye not one another, that ye be not judged, but let your speech be Yea, yea, and nay, nay, and say not unto one another, Thou fool, for such an one shall be in danger of the judgment. Therefore shall ye let virtue, patience, and longsuffering garnish your comments, and turn the other cheek to them that would persecute you with their words, returning good for evil. And thus it is. Amen.

By this I don't mean to blaspheme or mock any religion; only to show that imitation of this sort requires no particular skill and isn't proof of sanity.

As you'll learn in Crim Law later this year, the M'Naughten Rule applies only if the defendant "cannot distinguish between right and wrong in regard to the crime with which he/she is charged."

Thus, it's not just mental capacity, it's understanding of right and wrong. I think that's where the prosecution was going with Mr. Peterson's testimony.

That an accused suffers from mental disease or defect is a required, but not a sufficient finding in order to hold him not legally responsible. Additionally, the court must find that the disease or defect caused an inability to distinguish between right and wrong.

A person that can understand and coherently expound complex religious doctrine, logically supporting his argument with scripture, is much more likely to be able to distinguish right and wrong than one that just blathers on.

1L in VA,
Sanity and mental competence to stand trial aren't the same thing at all. All you proved was that you are competent, just like Mitchell.

If I'm not mistaken, the issue of Mitchell's sanity is separate from the issue of his competence to stand trial.
1. Competence, which is being decided now, determines whether he is mentally able to understand the court proceedings and assist in his own defense. If he is found competent then,
2.Trial will be held to determine whether he committed the crimes with which he is charged. If he is found guilty, then
3. A second phase of the trial will determine sanity, that is, his mental responsibility for the crimes he committed. The issue there is whether he is mentally able to understand the wrongfulness of his conduct, or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.

Thus, as I understand it, competence relates to his mental abilities now, as trial is imminent. Sanity relates to his mental abilities at the time of the alleged crimes.

Obviously, this will not be a quick process, but the constitution protects Mitchell's right to due process just as much as yours and mine.

Could someone please correct me if I am wrong in this analysis. Thank you.

Just to be clear, there is no question or doubt about his guilt, right? His guility is already firmly established by all parties involved in the judicial process. Any argument or commenting about the guilt/innocence thing is useless banter. It seems the only real salient issue left is his competency to stand trial. Which ironically seems to be a moot point, he's guilty. Not sure what the trial is supposed to accomplish when the guilt part is not a viable argument. Not sure if I have all the variables sorted out properly, but if they can establish his sanity in that he is able to tell the difference between right and wrong, then the trial can proceed and it would be a slam-dunk proceeding and the bad guy should be sentenced to a life term, and end of story. It just amazes me that our illustrious legal system takes years and even decades to figure out if a defendant knows right from wrong. Why is Utah dragging its feet on this? This case needs closure. Let's get the conviction ASAP and move on, please!

It's only been 5 years, whats the hurry? The state has plenty of money for worthless peoples defense, so it really doesn't bother me!

Sociopaths do not have a conscience, so I doubt they care what the difference is between right or wrong. They just do what benefits their needs. And yes, Ernest,you may be the only one...or are you just trying to stir something up here.