After about eight hours of deliberations, a jury has found Carla Hughes guilty of two counts of capital murder. Hughes was charged with killing her lover's fiance, Avis Banks, who was five months pregnant.
Prosecutors say Hughes killed Banks and her unborn child. They accused Hughes of fatally shooting, stabbing, and slashing Banks with a knife.
Jurors asked only one question during deliberations: could the prosecution have called Hughes to the stand. The judge sent a note back to the jurors directing them to their jury instructions. Hughes decided not to testify in her own defense during the trial.
This is a very fascinating case, for one reason that a woman could end up on death row in Mississippi. But also for the question of soundness of mind. Could a person do what she did while enjoying soundness of mind? In the midst of such an awful rage, is it possible for someone to understand the difference between right and wrong? Isn't it possible that crimes of passion like this have a built-in temporary insanity?
What's your opinion? What do you think about that decision to not let her testify? Did they think the verdict might be not guilty and she could mess it up by speaking? It makes me wonder what kind of advice she was getting. They must have known which way the jury was leaning and might have benefited from her testimony.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.