John du Pont — Foxcatcher Murder On January 26, 1996, billionaire John du Pont,

John du Pont — Foxcatcher Murder
On January 26, 1996, billionaire John du Pont, a financial supporter and enthusiast of U.S. wrestling, killed Olympic gold medalist wrestler David Schultz at his Team Foxcatcher wrestling facility on his estate. After the killing, du Pont barricaded himself in his home for two days, eventually being arrested. The murder appeared to be without motive or provocation, and many who knew du Pont were reportedly shocked by his behavior.
du Pont pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. Experts for the defense testified that du Pont was a paranoid schizophrenic who believed Schultz was involved in a plot to kill him. Two forensic psychologists hired by the prosecution testified that du Pont indeed suffered from mental illness, but was aware of the wrongfulness of the act of killing.
The jury rejected his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, finding him guilty of third-degree murder and simple assault under Pennsylvania’s guilty but mentally ill statutory scheme. He was sentenced to 13–30 years in prison. John du Pont died at the Laurel Highlands State Prison while serving out his sentence.
Prosecuting district attorney Patrick Meehan was happy with the victory but called it a shallow one, noting, “It’s a shame because over the last month we saw a tremendous amount of resources, especially of a psychiatric nature, that was available to this man, and many people who alleged to be his friends. And it’s tragic there wasn’t some intervention before the killing of David Schultz because the criminal justice system was left to pick up the pieces” (Vigoda & Ordine, 2014, par.14).
Overview of the case story: In 2–3 paragraphs, provide an overview of the case story.
Not guilty by insanity defense: In at least two paragraphs, explain whether it is difficult for the defendant in the chosen story to be found not guilty by insanity in a court of law. Discuss how it was determined whether a mental illness affected the individual’s ability to know right from wrong at the time the crime was committed.
Ethical issues: Discuss any ethical concerns that pertain to the chosen case story.