The time lag between finding out about the crime and killing Quill seems like a mere technicality to the Lieutenant and morally justifies Manion's actions in his mind, even though he knows he murdered Quill according to the law. According to the events presented as by Biegler, despite the fact that the Lieutenant was able to search for and find Quill, have enough presence of mind to arm himself, and then turn himself over to the authorities, he had obviously 'blacked out' during the commission of the crime, and had no recollection of the action. Biegler states to the jury that the Lieutenant "while he felt considerable loathing and contempt for the proprietor he had at no point has any intention of killing or harming" Quill even though, when he went looking for Quill, he took his wife's pistol with him (Traver 361). Needless to say, this seems improbable in the extreme. The absurdity of the scenario is conveyed by Biegler's long 'hypothetical question' about a 'hypothetical defendant' submitted to the defense psychologist, testifying as to Manion's temporary insanity and the Lieutenant's "dissociative reaction" after the horrific sight of witnessing his wife's rape (Traver 362-363; 370).

Manion clearly seems to be freed based upon juror sympathies and the cleverness of his attorney. D.A. Dancer is said to be unaware of how to manipulate the legal doctrine of "irresistible impulse" in a court of law and Biegler, a former prosecutor himself, says that he had never known about the "irresistible impulse" defense until he "unearthed" it for the Manion case (Traver 370). Biegler's language suggests a clear, calculated approach to Biegler's defense that seems more like a legal chess game than an actual defense based upon reason and logic. However, the prosecutor's approach seems no less calculated. For example, the D.A. finds a psychiatrist who says that because the Lieutenant did not have a dissociative reaction while under the stress of combat, it was impossible...

The defense attorney makes numerous references to the Lieutenant's service for the army, and begs them for an act of Christian charity, to allow the Lieutenant to return to civilian life. For the reader, after witnessing Biegler's behind-the-scenes calculated approach to defending his client, it is difficult to agree with the jury verdict. Manion himself seems to have a clear sense of what was occurring during the circumstances leading up to the murder, and while certainly compassion is called for in his sentencing, this does not excuse the crime or deny the premeditated nature of the action.
The idea of an 'irresistible impulse' or even a 'crime of passion' committed in the heat of the moment as a legally excusable crime seems open to abuses: why is the killing of a spouse's lover excusable, but not a crime that is committed during a non-sexual, but equally passionate moment? The very concept a crime of passion seems archaic, and while someone might be temporarily insane because of a failure to take psychotropic medication, a brain trauma, or some other unavoidable circumstances, the concept of an 'irresistible impulse' caused by a dissociative state that is solely the result of witnessing the infidelity of one's partner seems to put justice in the hands of irate husbands, rather than the law.

Works Cited

Phelps, Shirelle. "Insanity Defense." Encyclopedia of Everyday Law. Gale Cengage, 2003.

eNotes.com. 2006. 23 May, 2010

http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia / insanity-defense

Traver, Robert. Anatomy of a Murder. New York: St. Martin's, 2005.