The thing that both the prosecution and defense agree upon was that Eric was a schizophrenic. The thing on which the both disagreed was that the prosecution said that Eric knew that he was doing something wrong but defense did not agree.
The results of this case might mean that law of some nations could be in jeopardy because some countries provide insanity defense, where as some countries do not provide insanity defense at all.
Explanation:
The name of the story is HIGH COURT REVIEWS INSANITY-DEFENSE CASE. It is about a man who was from Arizona who had murdered, about the assassination of President Reagan.
This was known as the insanity defense because the man who had murdered the President was a psychotic and thus he was not found to be guilty because of his insanity.
The prosecution and defense agreed that Eric was schizophrenic.
In the story "High Court Review Insanity Defense", the prosecution and the defense both agreed that Eric was schizophrenic.
Their disagreement was that the prosecution said that Eric was aware of what he was doing while the defense disagreed.
The story "High Court Review Insanity Defense" was about a man that killed the president. The man who killed President Reagan was said to be psychotic and this generated a lot of debate.
Read related link on:
https://brainly.com/question/18306816
