Mentally ill man used to testify against others and himself.

Rettie,  Now why would anyone prosecute himself, with or without a mental illness?  Anyway, it would all depend on what the mental illness is.  If it is just bipolar, a depression, anxiety, or something on that order, then the person can surely testify. Schizophrenia, no, I don't think so. 

Anna Sparky's Mom

Rettie,  That was no reason for you to give me a not helpful.  I tried to answer you.  Now, from 150 years all the way down to 2 years is quite a big difference for a plea bargain.  Judges do not give 150 year sentences.  Life expectancy is not that long.  A judge would give a life sentence, but he would not say 150 years.  Something is not right with your story.  I don't know if you have all of the correct facts.  You need to talk to a good attorney and find out what is legal.

Anna Sparky's Mom

You must be mentally competent.

In United States law, this protection has been ruled by the United States Supreme Court to be guaranteed under the due process clause. If the court determines that a defendant's mental condition makes him unable to understand the proceedings, or that he is unable to help in his defense, he is found incompetent. The competency evaluation, as determined in Dusky v. United States, is whether the accused "has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding—and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him." Being determined incompetent is substantially different from undertaking an insanity defense; competence regards the defendant's state of mind at the time of the trial, while insanity regards his state of mind at the time of the crime. It has also been referred to as a "7:30 exam".

The word incompetent is also used to describe persons who lack mental capacity to make contracts, handle their financial and other personal matters such as consenting to medical treatment, etc. and need a legal guardian to handle their affairs.

In 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit considered the legal standards for determining competence to stand trial and to waive counsel using the standards of objective unreasonableness under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.

It is not unheard of for someone to be sentenced for many years beyond life expectancy. It is kind of ridiculous to do so, but it does happen especially if the charges are extraordinarily heinous or if there are countless acts.

On the other subject, her son could have been incarcerated for 2 years awaiting an appeal. If this is the case, when his trial day comes, his attorney will most likely ask that the sentence be considered “time served” since he already did the 2 years, if this is actually what’s going on.

Mr. Jqna, did you read this comment I left Rettie under my previous answer?

Rettie,  You said your grandson was in solitary for 2 years, and now you say he just got sentenced.  If he got sentenced for just the 2 years by confessing, he should be out now.  I still say something is not right here.

She states her grandson confessed to get the 2 year sentence.  So this would mean he has already been sentenced.  He has been in for two years now.  So when does he get released?  He just served the 2 years.  Again, something is not right with Rettie's story.  How can you get a sentence reduced from 150 years to only 2 years? 

Anna Sparky's Mom