Proof of insanity

Under Zekian law of judicial procedure, the burden of proof of insanity lies with psychiatric professionals, that is, psychiatrists must prove to a tribunal jurum that a defendant or plaintiff is afflicted with a real mental illness in order to establish inculpability or incompetence to stand trial. If they cannot establish proof, the jurum must disregard their judgments, as they have made unsubstantiated claims and are not actual witnesses. 
==Burden of proof and expert witnesses==
Zekian law does not recognize expert witnesses. Professionals who decide to participate in a trial are considered interested parties to the session who may provide advice to the jurum but whose claims may not be relied upon without usual standard evidence. Professionals may be cross-examined and counterclaimed by other parties to the sessions, including plaintiffs, defendants, attorneys, and jurors. They are required to provide proof for their claims in the same manner as prosecutors.
==The High Tribunal on Judicial Procedure establishes a dictum==
In the case shishi v Clarmon, a secondary level teacher named shishi was accused by Robert Clarmon of murdering his son Daniel Clarmon by repetitiously kicking him in the head with his hardshoed foot. He claimed that he received a phone call from his son's administrator that his son was attacked and killed by a teacher and that several students also said that a teacher killed her son. shishi paid for an attorney, Mikel Nier, who suggested that he undergo a psychiatric evaluation. The psychiatrist, AI Al, diagnosed shishi with "aggressive mania" and claimed that he was thus "inculpable due to mental malfunction, which resulted in emotional disregulation and dissociation". The jurum accepted the Al's claim and acquited shishi under ward of the state and his parents. Clarmon countered the claim and invoked the High Tribunal, claiming that the psychiatrist failed to justify his claim with standard evidence. Shaj of the High Tribunal wrote and established a dictum formal, agreeing with Clarmon. In his dictum, he stated that:
*a person's professional credentials do not excuse him or her from justifying his or her claims because "any party to a judicial session who states a claim or expresses a judgment shall justify his or her claims and judgments with standard evidence as revelant to the act in question" (Evidence and Justification, Judicial Code)
*psychiatry alone is not considered standard evidence of inculpability because of its cultural subjectivity ("Inculpability shall be determined par coercion, true ignorance, underdeveloped conscience, loss of volition, subconsciousness, through objective standard of evidence as relevant to the session", Culpability, Judcial Code)
*statements of so-called "expert witnesses" are mere hearsay unless evidence be provided and shall not be admitted as standard evidence ("interested parties shall be subject to the customary procedures of the tribunal", Other Parties to a Session, Judicial Code; Evidence and Justification, Judicial Code)
The other members of the Tribunal concurred with Shaj. Ni stated that "the burden of proof lies on him who makes a positive claim" and Ia stated "burden of proof for judgments of sanity lie upon psychiatrists and psychologists."