So, you're just wrong.... And loudly, which just makes it seem like you're purposely spreading misinformation. You can literally listen to the judge's instructions to the jury both at the beginning and end of the trial. He explicitly states that the state of Massachusetts is still required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did in fact commit the crime she was accused of regardless of the insanity defence. There were 5 possible verdicts read to the jury.

Going for the NGRMI defense just means the state also have to prove she was in her right mind.

The jury is charged, under oath mind you, to carry out the law as stated in the instructions given by the judge. If they have any reasonable doubt, they are instructed to find the defendant not guilty. A single juror expressed in deliberations that he had reasonable doubt but still refused to follow his oath and find her not guilty; the implication here is that the juror knowingly lied under oath to the judge about being able to carry out his duty under the law and torpedoed the trial based on personal convictions despite acknowledging reasonable doubt.