>> here's the issue. the first issue is that the insanity defense is looked upon with great skepticism. why? because i can't look into your mind. a juror cannot look into your mind. in the event that you're ill, i could see you and notice signs that you're ill. that's demonstrable. it's tangible. you can prove it. in the event i can't do that, i have to rely upon what you tell me. a jury needs a reason to find someone accountable. i think the prosecution gave them ample reason, not just because of the issues that paul laid out, the premeditation, the deliberation, but everything else that pointed to a rational person. yesterday an expert testify that had this was a sneak attack. what happened? routh waited until littlefield and kyle represented no danger, then he attacked. what does that tell you? a person is sane and can clearly distinguish between right and wrong. >> fred, the former prosecutor in you, you hear that opposing counsel is going to mount an insanity defense.