If you don't remember committing a crime, can you be tried?

[Durandal]

Say, for the sake of argument, that a guy murders someone else but winds up genuinely losing his recollection of those events afterward through whatever mechanism. (Maybe he smashed his head on accident or something.)

Can he be put on trial? Could his attorney credibly argue that, since his client can't remember what happened, he is unable to assist in his own defense? That would essentially make him incompetent to stand trial. And no, this isn't some metaphysical issue about whether or not it actually happened if you can't remember it. It's a question about competency to stand trial, that's it.

Is there any kind of precedent on this? Just curious as to how our justice system would deal with such a situation.

[Alyeska]

Depenging on the severity of the amnesia, it could be argued that it isn't even the same individual anymore.

[neoolong]

Uh, if you're drunk and kill someone but because you're drunk you don't remember, aren't you still going to be tried? I'd say that for simply not remembering committing the crime you can be tried. But, I'm not a lawyer, I only play one on tv.

[Sea Skimmer]

People commit violent crimes they don't remember all the time, thanks to certain drugs like PCP. Those people still get tried.

[Vympel]

I'm not aware of any legal standard that states a defendant has to be competent to assist in his own defence in order to stand trial. The burden of proof remember is entirely on the prosecution in any event to prove that the elements of the crime in question are satisfied, so it'll be for them to call witnesses/present evidence to satisfy those elements (the most basic being actus reus and mens rea).

[Enforcer Talen]

Buddy of mine popped on a drug test, and claimed he had no memory of the party involved.

For some reason, he still lost stripes.

[J]

Is there any kind of precedent on this? Just curious as to how our justice system would deal with such a situation.

The quick summary is it depends on the circumstances surrounding the amnesia, the severity of the crime, and the amount and reliability of the evidence against the defendant.

I'm not sure about murder, but there is precedent for lesser crimes where the perpetrator subsequently suffered amnesia. We covered a few cases in university including People v. Francabandera which set the precedent for competancy to stand trial in cases of amnesia, and ended with a recent case of a woman who was pled guilty on grand larceny charges when she developed a 30 year gap in her memory which encompassed the time during which the crime took place. Her plea was accepted since there was overwhelming evidence she commited the crime, and she was found guilty of the charges.

For murder, I'd guess that if there were mounds of reliable evidence such that the defendant's testimony would have little to no effect on the outcome, then the amnesiac defendant would be judged fit for trial.

[Quadlok]

I don't know about amnesia, but I know that in at least one case, sleepwalking has been used as a successful murder defense.

[Surlethe]

I would guess if the murderer was aware at the time of the murder, he is still culpable for the crime, even if he ceases to be aware of his ... awareness. I don't know if the legal system would follow this line of thought, though.

[Alyeska]

The criminal justice system is about two things. Rehabilitiation and retribution. When the criminal who comitted the crime has the memory wiped as well as significant other portions of the memory, there is no need for either. This mind has comitted no crime, there is nothing to retaliate for or rehabilitate. The physical body might have done something, but whats left of that mind did not.

Of course the modern criminal justice system can't take these facts into account and there is the issue that medical science can not tell with certainty who has permanent memory loss and who doesn't.