Clearly, the first thought that springs to mind is that this entire episode was a ruse. Obviously we don't know that but something struck me. Geske is quoted as saying she's never seen a defendant's mental capacity questioned in the middle of a trial. Without making an allegation here, it's surprising to me that in all the sanity trials over the years no defendant has attempted to draw his mental fitness into question during the process. You would think it would have been tried at least once.
Maybe it just was. Of course, the jury is unaware of this, but it certainly would seem to plant a seed on appeal. Or, maybe he really is that confused.This trial received a smattering of national coverage because of the races of the accused and victim, coming in the wake of the George Zimmerman trial. The quick guilty verdict pretty much made that coverage go away.
A not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect would likely bring back that media attention.