This case illustrates that trial tactics were influenced by the availability of the GBMI verdict: the evidence of mental illness was so strong that the case resulted in a full-blown trial and official recognition of mental illness. Jury selection also was affected, with the prosecutor seeking to avoid jurors who would permit the psychiatrist's opinion to become the real verdict in the case; while the defense sought jurors receptive to psychiatric testimony. In his opening remarks, the prosecutor distinguished between the defendant's mental illness and the insanity defense. By eliminating the possibility of a guilty verdict, the prosecutor felt his credibility and public image would be enhanced. A major effect of the GBMI verdict was in the presentation of evidence: the prosecution and defense cooperated with each other, each believing the full facts would provide a framework for argument and the flow of evidence. Both parties' questioning and cross-examination of psychiatrists most closely resembled that found in insanity defense cases, but during closing arguments the prosecutor was able to dismiss the relevance of the psychiatric testimony and that testimony was not reviewed during jury deliberations. 39 footnotes.