CNN’s TruTV is broadcasting the arson trial of a grandmother named Kathleen Hilton. What I’ve seen of the broadcast puzzles me, and if I were a juror in this trial I would be dying to ask the judge some questions. The jury instructions in this case should be quite interesting.

1. How could this woman have been judged to be competent to assist in her own defense? In other words, why is she even on trial? Not only has she been said to have an I.Q. of only 71, but she also has been diagnosed as having a schizophrenic-type disorder. She is obviously disoriented in the courtroom. (Commentators say she sits cross-legged without shoes in her chair.)

2. Why did the prosecution charge this person with intentional homicide? Surely the jury instructions will emphasize “intent.” How can a jury find that she could form intent?

In 2004 the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on the issue of I.Q. and capital crimes, in Tennard v. Dretke. This decision has long puzzled me. Apparently a 70 I.Q. is deemed “retarded.” In that case Tennard tested at 67. Given the unscientific nature of I.Q. testing, it seems to me that this line between retarded and normal is far from “bright.” Furthermore, even a relatively mentally retarded individual could be counseled to answer some questions incorrectly to make sure he or she “failed” the test. And a smart person could certainly intentionally fail the test.

Ms. Hilton, according to witness statements, has a 71 I.Q. How convenient for the prosecution that she has a 2 point “advantage” that permits her to be classified as normal!

This really seems to me to be a case that should never have come to court. If I were a juror, I would be perplexed and possibly irritated.

It’s another instance of the justice system failing American families. This case is all about families that can’t handle their most vulnerable and troubled members. Findlaw attributes this arson incident to a failure of grandparents’ rights! The defendant’s family seems to have a history of schizophrenia and abuse, criminal records, and poverty. Family courts and departments of family services have failed to solve this family’s problems or to provide them with the help they desperately needed.

Now a jury is being asked to make the Solomon-esque decision. I pity this jury.