Edgar Allan Poe wrote “The Tell-Tale Heart,” but the crime and the discussion surrounding it as to whether or not the criminal was insane to the point of using that insanity diagnosis in a defense plea is a discussion that still takes place today.

The eighth-grade students in Stephanie Kaffenberger’s English Language Arts classes at Western Hills Middle School spent much of the month of December reading “The Tell-Tale Heart,” discussing the story and debating that very question: Was the unnamed narrator guilty of the crime, or was he not guilty by reason of insanity? What types of things are considered when determining if one is insane? What happens during a police investigation, during psychological testing of alleged criminals and during the interactions between an alleged criminal and their lawyer? In the students’ social studies class, Carol Cullen’s lessons connected to the theme as well, with lessons taking place on topics such as Miranda rights and other criminal case studies.

As a culminating activity, the entire team of students gathered in the school auditorium on December 19, seated in order by their opinions of the case: with one side of the auditorium filled with the majority of the students who felt the accused was guilty, while the other side housed the students who felt he was not guilty by reason of insanity, consisting of approximately three rows of students. They were there to hear the expert panel’s opinions of the case. The panel was made up of parents of students on the team: Major Todd Patalano from the Cranston Police Department, Attorney Angela Yingling, from the Rhode Island Public Defender’s Office, and Dr. Tonya Latzman, a psychologist with a background in the areas of forensic psychology.

“Our panel of guests has been given the same resources our students have been given: the short story, and articles about the insanity plea.” said Kaffenberger. “What our students do not have yet, which our panel does have the benefit of having, is their professional expertise. You all have already made up your mind based on the evidence you have so far.” After hearing the reports of the experts, students were given an opportunity to change their mind and switch seats.

Major Todd Patalano addressed the students first, describing the police department’s role if a crime such as the one in “The Tell-Tale Heart” was reported and the authorities were called to investigate.

“First we would get a call that an individual was found deceased. We would conduct an investigation, uniformed officers would respond, we would seal off the area and call in forensics,” he said. “We would gather evidence, speak to witnesses and ask who knew the victim, who saw them last and try to piece together the evidence.”

Patalano said information would be forwarded to the Attorney General’s Office for a serious crime such as a suspicious death.

“The Attorney General’s Office would assign a prosecutor to us at the beginning,” Patalano said. “The evidence goes to the prosecutor and they go over it all. They try to determine motives, when, why and how the crime was committed, and who was responsible for it, and who else might also be responsible for it. We would work hand in hand with the prosecutor to present the case to the jury.”

When Angela Yingling addressed the audience, she clarified that no one is ever declared innocent.

“There are 12 people on the jury for a Rhode Island felony trial and they all have to agree,” she said. “The state has the burden of proof and they must prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As a society, we have decided that there will be errors and we would rather have a guilty person go free than an innocent person go to jail.”

She also clarified the Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity defense for the students.

“It means ‘I did it, but I didn’t know what I was doing when I did it,’” she said. She also clarified what happens to someone who is declared Guilty By Reason of Insanity.

“You don’t go home, you are held at a hospital and a report is done by a doctor who decides if you can be released safely or if they can detain you for the rest of your life with a review done every six months.”

Yingling discussed the case at hand given the evidence readers were privy to when reading Poe’s story.

“This case is good for us in that there is no motive and there is clearly some sort of psychotic thinking with regards to the man’s eye being perceived as dangerous. That indicates some sort of psychosis,” she said. “But what doesn’t bode well is the preparation and concealment, the fact that he dismembered the body and concealed it.”

She stated that part of her role would be to assess her client’s competency to stand trial, discuss various plea options such as taking a guilty of manslaughter plea which would receive a 20 year sentence, versus taking the not guilty by reason of insanity plea and going to live in a mental hospital for the rest of their lives.

Tanya Latzman next discussed what she looked for when actually reading “The Tell-Tale Heart” herself.

“I initially really looked at each word that is printed,” she said. “When you interview someone, it’s really important to consider every word.” She said that because a person’s fate is being decided, however, the decision shouldn’t be made with just one single piece of evidence. “The interview is not enough. We use science, we use the interview and we use other sources.”

“I made a chart with the two options. I thought of the very first sentence where he states that he is a nervous man,” she said. “That’s a big deal. He repeats that his senses are sharp, he can hear heaven, he can hear earth and he can hear hell.” She said students should consider if the man is having auditory hallucinations, “is he hearing something that is not there?” Although Latzman had a list of reasons why the narrator might be found Not Guilty, she also had a list of reasons why he might be guilty.

“In his own words, he made up his mind to take this man’s life. He proceeded wisely, with caution and with foresight,” she said. “He was not impulsive, he moved slowly, he planned, he had intent. He concealed the body in the floor, he invited the police in and was mocking them in a way. He was also overcome with guilt, he knew he did something wrong, and he confessed to the police.”

“I feel my opinion is in the middle,” Latzman said. “I feel that he was mentally ill, however he can appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions.”

“We have to prove insanity by a preponderance of evidence, according to Rhode Island law,” Yingling reminded the audience. “The burden to the defense is to prove that it must be more likely than not that the person had a mental illness, and that they couldn’t appreciate the criminality of their action due to their mental illness. There is a lot of premeditation in this case, it makes it very difficult to say.” She said it may be more of a moral decision. “Do we as a society feel that it is not fair or not right to put this man in jail for the rest of his life. That is a real question for the jury.”

Patalano stated that the age of reason for the laws of society is deemed to be the age of seven, which means that one has been determined to have the skills or mindset to know right from wrong and what could happen.

“In this case, there was a lot of thought ahead of time, a lot of planning. When he killed him, he knew to keep quiet, he knew to wait until the dark of midnight, he knew it was wrong.” Patalano said. “If I were considering our choices, I would consider first degree murder because of the malice and the forethought. If this was a jury in this room, it would be split right now about 65 saying Guilty and 35 saying Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity, but remember, just because someone is insane, they don’t walk right back out into society again. They would be in a state mental hospital. This is not a ‘get out of jail free’ card, and how long they would be in there or be in jail would be up to the judge and jury,” Patalano said.

After the experts had given their opinions, the students had the opportunity to ask some clarifying questions before making their final decision to either stay in their seat or to move, indicating a change in their own opinions. The students were able to connect the resources they had to the questions they asked the expert panel, using information from class discussions or from the articles they had read related to the concept of the insanity plea, such as the presence of a physiological issue affecting the person who committed the crime such as a head injury or a chemical imbalance.

At the end of the two-hour session, one student moved from the Guilty side of the room over to the Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity, while several moved in the opposite direction, taking their seats in the Guilty section of the auditorium.

“Ultimately, this is a hung jury,” said Yingling. “This would be a good thing for my client because everyone must be unanimous.”

“So in this case, majority doesn’t rule,” said Kaffenberger. “You only need one person to disagree.”

The students asked Kaffenberger her opinion, which she’d been keeping close throughout the weeks of discussion, and then asked each of the panelists and their other teachers their final thoughts as well.

“I absolutely agree that this was premeditated,” she said. “But, I do think that he suffers from a serious illness and I do think that would play a significant role if the case went to trial.”

Yingling agreed.

“No one is ever declared innocent, and I do think this qualifies for the insanity defense, and he’d have a decent chance.”

Patalano gave his opinion and reminded the students of the ultimate goal in a case such as this, where the person has confessed to committing the crime.

“He’s guilty. The goal is that he gets taken out of society so that it doesn’t happen again, so that he can get help.”

In Latzman’s opinion, the narrator met one of the two criteria needed for the Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity plea.

“He definitely seems to be mentally ill, but he appreciates the wrongfulness of his actions,” she said.

“Clearly, he was mentally ill, and of diminished capacity,” Cullen said.

At the conclusion of the morning, Kaffenberger was especially pleased with the event and with her students.

“They were engaged in such critical thinking skills, it was fabulous,” she said. “They used the articles and resources that we had gone over in our Socratic seminars when they were asking their questions and considering the information they were hearing. They were really engaged, you could tell that they had really thought about this. I love teaching because it’s so important to teach the students to look at something they’re learning in the classroom and see how it extends to real life. This story as written in the 1800s, but it’s classic, timeless themes apply in today’s real world. It’s was exciting, I loved it.”