I think some folks are missing the point here. The fact that the court decided that "She wasn't delusional, because she was following a religion," is not in any way a finding that favors the woman's defense.

It would be far better for her if she had been found to be delusional. If she were delusional, her actions could be defended on mental health grounds. But "She was following the precepts of her religion," is not a viable defense in this country.

We do not live in a theocracy. Our legal system does not allow abdication of personal responsibility based upon religious belief. That's why her attorney is trotting out the "brainwashing" defense. To get her off, he has to prove that she is mentally impaired. If she did it because of religious belief, he has no defense and she's guilty.