[MRM]

It's hard to tell from the article, but I don't think it is accurate to say that the judge's decision overuled the jury's finding. The only way this makes procedural sense is if in that state the jury decides whether the defendant committed the crime but the judge decides the question of sanity.

What seems to have happened here is that the jury found that she did commit the crime, but the judge found her insane. The definition of insane for criminal law purposes is that the person cannot distinguish right from wrong.

It doesn't make sense to punish someone who doesn't know right from wrong, so in America, insane people are not punished, they removed from the public are given treatment. Most jurisdictions have done away with the apparent loophole that the insane person gets out upon no longer being judged insane, but this one doesn't look like it has.

In one sense the judge's decision overturned the verdict. She won't go to jail, which is what the verdict would have had her do. And because she is insane, she is judged not guilty by reason of insanity. That is, she did it but she is not responsible for her own actions.

The way the article read made it sound like the jury found her guilty and sane, but the judge over ruled the sane finding and imposed the finding of insanity.