News & Politics - Andrea Yates' Conviction Overturned

WalkingOnSunshine · 01-06-2005, 11:56 AM

Quote:

HOUSTON — Andrea Yates' (search) capital murder convictions for drowning her children were overturned Thursday by an appeals court, which ruled that a prosecution witness' erroneous testimony about a nonexistent TV episode could have been crucial.

Yates' lawyers had argued at a hearing last month before a three-judge panel of the First Court of Appeals in Houston that psychiatrist Park Dietz (search) was wrong when he mentioned an episode of the TV show "Law & Order" involving a woman found innocent by reason of insanity for drowning her children.

After jurors found Yates guilty, attorneys in the case and jurors learned no such episode existed.

"We conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Dr. Dietz's false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury," the court ruled. "We further conclude that Dr. Dietz's false testimony affected the substantial rights of appellant."

The appellate ruling returns the case for a new trial, although prosecutors said they hoped instead to successfully appeal Thursday's ruling.

"We fully intend to pursue a motion for a rehearing," said Harris County Assistant District Attorney Alan Curry, who argued the case before the appeals court. "Barring that, we'll continue to appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. We still believe we have a good shot to prevail in appeal."

Jurors in 2002 sentenced Yates to life in prison in the 2001 deaths of three of her children. She was not tried in the deaths of the other two.

The defense's appeal cited 19 errors from her trial, but the appeals court said since the false testimony issue reversed the conviction, it was not ruling on the other matters. Among other things, Yates attorneys had claimed the Texas insanity standard is unconstitutional.

Prosecutors told the court last month there was no evidence Dietz intentionally lied and that the testimony was evoked by Yates' defense attorney during cross-examination. They also argued that Dietz's testimony wasn't material to the case and there was plenty of other testimony about Yates' plans to kill her children.

"We agree that this case does not involve the state's knowing use of perjured testimony," the appeals court said in its ruling. But the judges said prosecutors did use the testimony twice and referred to it in closing arguments.

A woman answering the telephone at Dietz's Newport Beach, Calif., office said Thursday there was no immediate comment from him or his firm. He had testified the episode aired shortly before the drownings, and other testimony during the trial had indicated that Yates watched the series.

The error came to light during the sentencing phase of the trial. State District Judge Belinda Hill refused a defense request for a mistrial but allowed the attorneys to stipulate to jurors, before they decided on Yates' punishment, that the program did not exist.

Prosecutor Joe Owmby said at the time that Dietz didn't tell him until after his closing arguments in the guilt phase of the trial that he was mistaken about the show.

"He was confused and made an error," Owmby said.

A wet and bedraggled Yates called police to her home on June 20, 2001, and showed them the bodies of her five children: Noah, 7, John, 5, Paul, 3, Luke, 2, and 6-month-old Mary. She had called them into the bathroom and drowned them one by one.

According to testimony, Yates was overwhelmed by motherhood, considered herself a bad mother, and had attempted suicide and been hospitalized for depression.

Prosecutors acknowledged she was mentally ill but argued that she could tell right from wrong and was thus not legally insane.

The case stirred debate over the legal standard for mental illness and whether postpartum depression is properly recognized and taken seriously. Women's groups had harshly criticized prosecutors for pushing for the death penalty.

Dietz is a nationally known expert who also took part in such high profile cases as those of Susan Smith, convicted of killing her two children in a South Carolina lake; serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer ; and "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski.

I wonder if the jury would have really made a different decision if that episode had not been cited. I doubt it but let them appeal it. I do not think the results will change for her.

***Jerry D*** · 01-06-2005, 12:26 PM

Wow, that’s a shock, but it doesn’t surprise me. I live in the Houston area, so this case was headline news, and her original verdict of guilty was very controversial, because of her long history of schizophrenia and post partum depression, but the way she systematically murdered her children was horrifying, so the opinions concerning whether she should have been convicted varied greatly. I wonder how all this will shake out.

*Lauren · 01-06-2005, 04:48 PM

Apparently the doctor had said that Andrea Yates had based the killing on this eppisode. The fact it dosen't exisit, is extreemly important.

I feel so desperatly sorry for this woman. She had severe depression, asked for help numerous times and her ******* of a husband did nothing! Made her home school them, and then knocks her up again! He should have been charged.

last beautiful girl · 01-06-2005, 07:54 PM

Oh my. There's so many things wrong with this.

1. She killed her kids. Post-partum depression, legally insane or not, the woman committed a heinous crime and she deserves to pay.
2. Law and Order? Is a TV show! (Rest in peace Jerry Orbach). It has no basis in reality.
3. The episode in question didn't even exist! Which makes this even more bizarre.

So there's gonna be a new trial now? I do realize this is America, "right to a fair trial in a court of law"(trying to cover all my bases here so I don't sound stupid), but I can't understand why any judge would overturn this ruling. In any other circumstance, maybe, but not "I saw it on TV".

alli balli · 01-06-2005, 08:02 PM

Well I think *Lauren pointed out why they're overturning it...part of the prosecution's evidence (as silly as it may sound) was that she had based the murder on an episode of Law and Order. And now it turns out that what may have strongly influenced the jury was a lie. I think it makes perfect sense to overturn it, and rehear the trial.

And someone who is legally insane should not have to "pay" for what they did...the whole point of being "legally insane" is that you can't tell right from wrong. Someone who is legally insane needs mental care and rehabilitation, not punishment.

*Lauren · 01-06-2005, 08:04 PM

Quote:

1. She killed her kids. Post-partum depression, legally insane or not, the woman committed a heinous crime and she deserves to pay.

That's not how the legal system works. If you are legally insane, you cannot know what you are doing. Besides, I read an article where they were saying, that when she gets better, they start to take her off her meds, she realises what she's done, and crashes again. I think the guilt that women has to live with for the rest of her life is punishment enough, without denying her the help she desperatly needs.

Quote:

2. Law and Order? Is a TV show! (Rest in peace Jerry Orbach). It has no basis in reality.
3. The episode in question didn't even exist! Which makes this even more bizarre.

Which is why the verdict was overturned, as the expert said he had consulted on this eppisode, and that she could have used it as something to show her how to kill her children. Since he lied on that point, the rest of his evidence is tainted.

86amanda86 · 01-06-2005, 08:11 PM

Lauren - O. M. G.

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that this woman's guilt is punishment enough for sytematically murdering her children?

Lovesbitch · 01-06-2005, 08:26 PM

The woman obviously needs mental attention, looking at her history leading up to the events. I don't think jail time will help her, she needs to be put in a hospital were she can get the help that she needs.

She did a horrible thing but I don't believe she was in her right mind when she did it. If you look at her back story she suffered horrible depression after her children were born. She wanted to stop having children but her husband wouldn't let her.

He knew about her depression and not only did he ignore her request for no more children, he had her home school them.

So no, I don't think that she should be found guilty and be jailed. I think she was criminally insane at the time of the murders.

last beautiful girl · 01-06-2005, 08:58 PM

Oh. Okay, I understand now. They'd cited the episode and that wasn't sufficient evidence. Okay. ::nods::

Quote:

I think the guilt that women has to live with for the rest of her life is punishment enough, without denying her the help she desperatly needs.

I concur with the first part of your statement, but what's going to happen when she gets 'help'? Is she going to be paroled in x number of years, told she's no longer a 'danger to society' and let out into the world again? When she's 'cured' and realizes what she's done, what's keeping her from going off and hurting others? Put her in prison, it might cost a lot of money, but at least everybody's safer that way.

Yeah, I might sound harsh and unforgiving, but when a mother kills her own children, she kinda loses sympathy votes with me.

Lovesbitch · 01-06-2005, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by last beautiful girl

I concur with the first part of your statement, but what's going to happen when she gets 'help'? Is she going to be paroled in x number of years, told she's no longer a 'danger to society' and let out into the world again? When she's 'cured' and realizes what she's done, what's keeping her from going off and hurting others? Put her in prison, it might cost a lot of money, but at least everybody's safer that way.

Yeah, I might sound harsh and unforgiving, but when a mother kills her own children, she kinda loses sympathy votes with me.

Yes, she will be releasd into society once she is better. It could take years up on years for this to happen but hopefully someoday it will. When she is no longer a threat to others or herself is when she will be re-released, nobody really needs to worry about harm.

The point here is not to punish her, it's to help her. What she did was horrible but if she is criminally insane what she did was not a crime. She had little control over her actoins.

And the point of prisons isn't only to keep us safe from the criminals, it's to rehabiliate them so they can re-enter society.

86amanda86 · 01-06-2005, 09:46 PM

Um sorry, but statements like that are the reason that federal prison these days is closer to a vacation health spa than a prison.

I don't believe this woman will ever be safe to enter society. Insane or not, she murdered rchildren. She can get on all the anti depressants available but when she's "better" those children are still dead. Murderd, by her.

I can't believe that you are not infuriated by this heinous crime. She knew what she was doing! She called her chidren into the bathroom one by one and drowned them each, one by one by one by one by one. (There were five of them)

This makes me sick and so do comments that we should blame it on her husband or that she was insane and therefore did not know what she was doing. She knew.

last beautiful girl · 01-06-2005, 10:20 PM

I don't get what 'criminally insane' means. Is this it?

Quote:

A person may have adequate intelligence to know that the commission of a certain act, e.g., murder, is wrong but at the time of the commission of the act in question he may be so obsessed with delusions or subject to impulses which are the product of insanity that he is incapable of bringing his mind to bear on what he is doing and the considerations which to normal people would make the act right or wrong

taken from HERE

So she didn't know what she was doing at the time of the murders? She couldn't comprehend the atrocity of her act? Whether or not she couldn't comprehend it, she still did it. The only person responsible for Andrea Yates' actions, wrong or right, good or bad, is Andrea Yates.

Quote:

And the point of prisons isn't only to keep us safe from the criminals, it's to rehabiliate them so they can re-enter society.

I do agree with this statement as I knew somebody who went to prison about ten years ago(he's out now), and he's a wonderful guy with a successful business and a terrific father to two children. So I do believe that people can be rehabilited. However, in this situation, which of course is different from my experience, I have little faith in the power of rehabilitation. I still trust it, I just don't trust it very much.

Lovesbitch · 01-06-2005, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 86amanda86

Um sorry, but statements like that are the reason that federal prison these days is closer to a vacation health spa than a prison.

I don't believe this woman will ever be safe to enter society. Insane or not, she murdered rchildren. She can get on all the anti depressants available but when she's "better" those children are still dead. Murderd, by her.

I can't believe that you are not infuriated by this heinous crime. She knew what she was doing! She called her chidren into the bathroom one by one and drowned them each, one by one by one by one by one. (There were five of them)

This makes me sick and so do comments that we should blame it on her husband or that she was insane and therefore did not know what she was doing. She knew.

She was not mentally capable to take care of her children at the time and that lead to her actions. I am not saying that this justifies what it did but she's not an evil woman. She was mentally ill. She suffered from depression and post pardom stress.

Her husband knew all of this and ignored it, forcing her to homeschool the childre. She wanted to stop having children because she couldn't take it, he is the one that put so much pressure on her.

The fact is what happened was horrible but it could have easily been prevented if she had recieved the proper medical care.

Some schizophrenics are dangerous to themselves and others when they are not medicated, yet if they seek help and take their medication they can live a normal life. Should these people be put in jail because there is a possibility that they may hurt someone?

She needs to go to a mental hospital and be commited so she can regain her mental health. This isn't going to be some short term thing, she may be in their years upon years.

And you say that she knew what she was doing? Take any basic psychology course and learn about the different mental conditions that she was suffering from. Then tell me that you think she had control over actions.

Lovesbitch · 01-06-2005, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by last beautiful girl

I don't get what 'criminally insane' means. Is this it?

taken from HERE

So she didn't know what she was doing at the time of the murders? She couldn't comprehend the atrocity of her act? Whether or not she couldn't comprehend it, she still did it. The only person responsible for Andrea Yates' actions, wrong or right, good or bad, is Andrea Yates.

Yes, I think that is the perfect defintion. She now knows what she did was a horrible, horrible thing.

And you're saying that 'criminally insane' should never be used for anyone? So people with mental illnesses should be punished as if they acted out in their right mind?

And no, they were not her actions. They were actions brought on by her conditions and the situation around her. If she had recieved help for her problems and stopped having childrens *like she wanted* than this would have never happened.

86amanda86 · 01-07-2005, 12:16 AM

A lot of women reach points at times when they wish they didn't have children because they feel they can't take care of them but they don't drown them in the bath tub.

Let's play your way. That this is the husband's fault for forcing her to have children. Do you think that a man who would force these things on his wife is a picture of health? I think he was just as crazy for "pushing her into this." What's to say he isn't criminally insane too? What's to say I'm not? Does that mean he could have killed them instead and gotten off on the basis that he wasn't in his right mind? No. Not in this country where we poor women have it so bad and all those mean men take advantage of us....

Not her action? Are you serious? Have you ever been clinically depressed? I have. Severely. I even spent nearly a year in an in patient treatment program for it, and I can promiss you that neither I, nor any of the patients, even the ones in lock down were ever so far outside their mind that they could kill five people and not have known what they were doing, not have been in control. So don't tell me about the basics of psychology. I don't need a basic course. I took a year long crash course from the drivers seat.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > Andrea Yates' Conviction Overturned