What if I have “reasonable doubts” concerning the defense claim that the defendant “knew the difference between right and wrong”?

Since the defense has the burden of proof in an insanity defense, does that mean the defendant is presumed sane unless and until proven otherwise? If so, how can this be? It boggles the mind.

And how do I know whether or not my doubts are “reasonable”? I’m not a psychologist or a psychiatrist. Maybe all I’m feeling is a silly doubt about my own sense of what is right and wrong.

• Sidebar (emendation): I learned late yesterday that the burden on the defense is "to the juror's satisfaction" or something of that nature, not "beyond a reasonable doubt." Under that standard I am even more convinced that this trial will not end in a convcition.

You might think that the Castillo jury has a simple decision to make. I’m sure the prosecution will argue as much. All the prosecutors have to do in their closing arguments is point to Castillo’s confessions and apologies.

But having been a juror on what seemed like an open-and-shut kidnapping case to the prosecutors and judge, I know that nothing a jury must decide is ever clear cut. In “my” case, the defendant was caught in the act and signed a confession. We stupid jurors still “nullified” the kidnapping charges.

If you want to know what it feels like to be a juror on a case the public considers to be open-and-shut, please download my novel, THE JUROR HANGS, from either www.Amazon.com or www.Smashwords.com. (Never heard of Smashwords? Click here for info and instructions on how to download the novel in multiple ebook formats: Sony, MobiPocket, etc.) It reads great on any iPhone, SmartPhone, Blackberry, Sony reader, or Kindle.