A Vermont jury rejected an insanity plea and found Jason Eaton guilty of trying to kill three visiting students at close range.
Story Snapshot
- Jurors convicted Jason Eaton on three counts of attempted second-degree murder.
- Prosecutors argued Eaton intended to kill and was not legally insane.
- A state psychiatrist testified Eaton did not meet Vermont’s insanity standard.
- One victim is paralyzed from the waist down, underscoring the attack’s severity.
Jury Delivers Guilty Verdicts On All Counts
Jurors in Burlington, Vermont returned guilty verdicts on all three counts of attempted second-degree murder against Jason Eaton. Reporters in court said the clerk read the charges, and the jury answered “guilty” for each victim. The shooting happened in November 2023, when three Palestinian students visited family for the holiday weekend. The panel’s decision ends a trial focused less on who fired the shots and more on Eaton’s state of mind at the time.
Prosecutors told jurors that evidence showed Eaton intended to kill the men and was not justified in using force. The lead prosecutor said he did not meet Vermont’s legal test for insanity, which requires a qualifying mental disease or defect that removes responsibility. The state argued the attack was deliberate and close-range, not a split-second mistake. The jury’s swift, clear verdicts show they accepted the state’s case on intent and responsibility under the law.
Insanity Claim Rejected After Expert Clash
The defense said Eaton suffered from a psychotic disorder and believed orders came from intelligence agencies and even God. A defense psychiatrist testified Eaton thought he was on an “authorized” mission and did not know his actions were wrong. The state countered with its own expert, Dr. Jhilam Biswas, who told jurors Eaton did not have a psychotic disorder that met Vermont’s standard, and that his awareness undercut an insanity claim. Jurors sided with the prosecution’s expert.
Before trial, the court found Eaton competent to stand trial, meaning he understood the charges and could work with counsel. That ruling cleared the way for jurors to decide insanity at the time of the act, a much narrower legal issue. The defense played a recorded interview where Eaton said he worked for the Central Intelligence Agency, but prosecutors framed those claims as unproven beliefs, not a medical basis to erase criminal responsibility under state law.
What The Evidence Showed About The Shooting
Prosecutors said Eaton approached the young men in Burlington and fired from only a few feet away. One victim, Brown University student Hisham Awartani, is paralyzed from the waist down, while the other two suffered gunshot wounds and survived. The state used the close range, the number of shots, and the life-altering injuries to show a clear intent to kill. Reuters reported the jury reached the same conclusion after weighing the expert dispute and the physical facts.
🚨 JURY REJECTS INSANITY DEFENSE IN VERMONT SHOOTING OF PALESTINIAN STUDENTS
BURLINGTON, UNITED STATES – A criminal conviction does not settle the unresolved question of motive, but it removes the defense argument that Eaton's actions were beyond legal responsibility. That… pic.twitter.com/11oqm5oQyK
— The Content Factory (@tcf_updates) September 22, 2026
No hate-crime charge was filed in the case, which kept the legal fight centered on attempted murder and criminal responsibility. That charging choice did not change the key question for jurors: did Eaton intend to kill, and was he legally sane when he pulled the trigger? The verdict answers both. The jury found intent was proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that the insanity defense failed under Vermont’s standard for mental disease or defect.
Why This Verdict Matters For Law And Order
This case shows how our justice system should work when facts are clear and excuses fall short. The jury weighed expert claims, but the law requires more than strange beliefs to erase guilt. Medical terms are not the same as legal standards. A person must lack the ability to know right from wrong due to a severe disorder. That bar protects the public and victims while keeping room for true cases of insanity. Jurors applied that rule here and held a shooter accountable.
Limits And Next Steps
Public reports do not include the full verdict form or every forensic detail. That means the exact juror reasoning is not fully visible. But the outcome is not in doubt: guilty on all three counts. Sentencing will follow standard Vermont procedures. The paralyzed victim still faces a lifetime of care and costs. The community in Burlington also moves forward, knowing a jury reviewed the evidence and delivered a clear answer on intent, sanity, and responsibility under law.
Sources:
abcnews.com, bostonglobe.com, vermontpublic.org, wamc.org
