Andrea Yates' Conviction Overturned

[nickel]

Thursday, January 06, 2005
HOUSTON — Andrea Yates' 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.

http://www.foxnews.com/images/149801/2_14_yates_andrea_mugshot.jpg

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 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.

link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143508,00.html)

[whitak24]

does anybody know what the psych said about the show and what relevance it had to the trial? i don't understand based on the article above.

[nickel]

does anybody know what the psych said about the show and what relevance it had to the trial? i don't understand based on the article above.
i think just the fact that the Law & Order episode was mentioned and it happened to be about the same thing Yates was being tried for doing, and yet no episode existed, so in fact the psychiatrist lied on the stand.

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 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.

[whitak24]

yeah, but just because someone lies (or gives misinformation) on the stand doesn't necessarily mean the conviction can be overturned. the lie/misinformation has to be a material issue that could have influenced the jury's decision.

my guess is that he testified that Yates had seen this imaginary episode and that as a result she thought she could get away with killed her kids and then pleading insanity. but i'm not sure, and the article doesn't really shed any light on it.

[nickel]

yeh, that sounds right, but what is a new trial going to do?

cost more money and in the end reinstate her guilt?

[Kevster]

my guess is that he testified that Yates had seen this imaginary episode and that as a result she thought she could get away with killed her kids and then pleading insanity.

:stupid:

I heard this same thing from a legal analyst that covered the trial this morning on a news radio station.

Now the DA's office will have to see if they want to go to the expense of a new trial on the 3 overturned convictions or prosecute her for the other 2 children that they didn't include in the first trial.

In all fairness, she is a very ill person and she will not be going anywhere but another mental treatment facility once she is released. There is no doubt as to whether she did the crime or not, but whether she was mentally competant at the time. I personally don't think she was since I personally know someone with a similiar illness and know what can go through a person's mind when they are having a psychotic episode. It really is sad all the way around for everyone.

[whitak24]

well, it depends. it sounds like she had a bunch of arguments for why a mistrial should be declared which the appeals court didn't even consider because they ruled that the psych's testimony compelled a mistrial. one of these arguments concerned the insanity standard. if that's something that is considered more closely in a second trial, then that could change the outcome.

[Jane83]

law and order is an awesome show.
that doctors a phoney!

[welfareloser]

she's not any happier about her kids being dead than anyone else. jailtime is ridiculous. she needs treatment, not more punishment. it wasn't somethign she was "trying to get away with" ... she was trying to save them from imagined evil.

i was listening to a collection of anna quindlen's essays today... one in which she wrote about the only essay she had ever written under duress: about andrea yates. her editor made her do it. so she wrote a painfully honest column about how every mother has at least some idea of how andrea yates felt. depressed, overwhelmed, unfit, with nobody to turn to. add in severe post-partum dementia (depression + psychotic hallucinations) and you get these 5 dead kids. she was homeschooling all of them, her husband was gone all the time, and she had a serious mental roblem that everyone denied, because our society is so godd***ed judgemental of parents that you're just f***ed no matter what you try to do. slap your kid at the mall? someone calls security. don't discipline him when he does something stupid? people walk up and tell you all the ways you're screwing up. working moms constantly insult stay at home moms by saying they must be so stifled and bored. stay at home moms feel smugly superior to working moms for abandoning their kids. there's so much pressure to make mothering look easy that nobody confides in even their best friends - people who would understand!!! - because they're too busy trying to make sure everyone sees HOW GODD***ED HAPPY THEY ARE to be moms. feel like you need to use the services of the crisis nursery one day? think again; you get a permanent dcfs file folder and a room-temp iq caseworker on your ass for the next 15 years.

people are perfectly happy admitting their marriage has gone to hell, their job sucks, their house is a rathole, etc. but let one person see you make one slightly socially unacceptable parenting move, and it's social suicide. if your five-year-old likes a pacifier at night... everybody is talking about it behind your back. why? who knows? it doesn't hurt her teeth... she's a confident, well-mannered young lady... but by god, as soon as you leave a party, 20+ other adults are instantly talking about what a f***ed up parent you are and how your kid is obviously screwed for life.

anyway, the response to the essay was an overwhelmingly unanimous "thank you." thank you for being honest. thank you for letting me know i'm not the only one. we all know how the andrea yates tragedy happened... we've all been at least part of the way down that path ourselves.

anyone who can't find sympathy for her is a turd.

[Jenny]

I don't feel sympathy for her. Her kids suffered for something that she & her husband did not stop and take care of. Did I feel like that when I had Josh? Sure, a few times. What did my husband do? Get me pregnant again and leave me home to homeschool them? **** no. He made sure I talked to someone, got out of the house and got some time away. Her husband is as much or more to blame than she is. Do I think she was mentally stable? No. Do I think she should not be punished for that? No f'in way. :shrug:

[CarolinaGal]

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: January 6, 2005


Filed at 3:06 p.m. ET

Excerpt from the testimony of Dr. Park Dietz that led to the reversal of Andrea Yates' murder conviction:

Yates lawyer: ``Now, you are, are you not, a consultant on the television program known as ``Law & Order?''

Dietz: ``Two of them.''

Lawyer: ``OK. Did either one of those deal with postpartum depression or women's mental health?''

Dietz: ``As a matter of fact, there was a show of a woman with postpartum depression who drowned her children in the bathtub and was found insane and it was aired shortly before the crime occurred.''

------

In closing arguments, one of Yates' lawyers referred to the Dietz testimony:

``Or maybe even we heard some evidence that she saw some show on TV and knew she could drown her children and get away with it.''

In the same round of closing arguments, a prosecutor referred to the testimony:

``She watches `Law & Order' regularly, she sees this program. There is a way out. She tells that to Dr. Dietz. A way out.''

[welfareloser]

i'd agree that her husband likely needs to bear most of the blame. from what i have read, he was the one who pushed for so many kids, who pushed her to homeschool, who told everyone that she was "just fine" and didn't allow her to seek help, etc.

but the criteria for a crime vs. insanity is whether or not she knew that what she was doing was wrong.

she thought that she was a terrible mother and that her children were going to be subjected to unspeakable evils. voices told her that the only way to save her childrens' souls was to kill them. she is healthier now, and realizes that she was nuts at the time. her grief must be unspeakable. i feel sorry for her.

EDIT: anyway, she's a far cry from, say, susan smith, who drowned her two kdis by strapping them in their carseats and pushing the car into a river. yes, susan was depressed, and messed up, she didn't see any other way out, etc... but she knew what she was doing was wrong. she ahd a new BF who didn't want kids, her mom wouldn't take her kids, so this was her sick solution. i have SOME sympathy for her, but that's just me. i wouldn't expect anyone else to...

andrea wasn't trying to escape her situation. she was trying to do what was best for her kids. if the angel of god came down in a shower of light and a voice boomed inside your head to drown your child now, would you do it? i wouldn't, but i'm relatively healthy. she was utterly convinced that that was exactly what was going on... now that she's properly medicated, she knows that's not what was going on. i have nothing but sympathy for her.

people who hear voices are durned near impossible to convince that they're wrong. it's amazing. maybe you wouldn't believe it til you see it. really not their fault.

[kgsilvas]

Andrea Yates Again Pleads Not Guilty By PAM EASTON, AP

HOUSTON - Andrea Yates pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity in the drowning deaths of her children Monday as she made her first court appearance since her 2002 capital murder convictions were overturned.

State District Judge Belinda Hill set a March 20 trial date.

Yates, 41, will remain in the custody of the Harris County Sheriff's Department until she is retried for the deaths of three of her five children. Her attorney, George Parnham, had asked that Yates be sent to Rusk State Hospital until the new trial.

During her original trial, jurors rejected Yates' insanity defense and found her guilty for the 2001 deaths of three of the children drowned in the family bathtub: 7-year-old Noah, 5-year-old John and the youngest, 6-month-old Mary.

Evidence was presented about the drownings of the other two children — Paul, 3, and Luke, 2 — but Yates was not charged in their deaths.

Yates was sentenced to life in prison.

Her convictions were overturned last January by a state appeals court because of testimony by the state's expert witness, forensic psychiatrist Park Dietz. He testified that, shortly before Yates killed her five children, television's "Law and Order" series broadcast an episode about a woman with postpartum depression who drowned her children. No such episode ever existed.

[Prisoner 24601]

I dunno, I say drown her and the husband and we can all go on our merry lives!

[zippyjuan]

So a TV show episode was critical in a murder trial? Don't they know that is fiction? And even more ficticious since the episode in question never existed? Was that what the most compelling evidence they had was based on?

[Grimm]

In Texas, you could eat your foot, shoe and all, on the jury stand, ask for seconds, and still be considered sane for purpose of trial.
The husband should be tried for abuse and locked up for a few years. She should get some quiet time in a mental institution.
What kind of man leaved his children alone with an insane woman and keeps throwing more crap at her all the time? An abusive one.

[PoorAvatar]

Her husband is as much or more to blame than she is.

:agree: Definitely as much!

[Thesifer]

Uhmm, I am just confused at the other two children and her not being charged for that? They were all murdered at the same time am I correct in this? Wouldn't it be a pretty big helping of evidence that she called and then showed the police where all of the kids were??

Were they saving this in case she gets off so they can then try her for those ? OR what.. Any more info on this?

[Grimm]

Uhmm, I am just confused at the other two children and her not being charged for that? They were all murdered at the same time am I correct in this? Wouldn't it be a pretty big helping of evidence that she called and then showed the police where all of the kids were??

Were they saving this in case she gets off so they can then try her for those ? OR what.. Any more info on this?
It's a strategy by the prosicution. So that they don't overwhelm the jury with too much information and hold some charges in reserve in case the first ones don't stick on a technicality. They can change their strategy and try again.

Not sure that it would work though. If she gets found insane then that's pretty much it.

[welfareloser]

In Texas, you could eat your foot, shoe and all, on the jury stand, ask for seconds, and still be considered sane for purpose of trial.

:stupid: :heh:


The husband should be tried for abuse and locked up for a few years. She should get some quiet time in a mental institution.
What kind of man leaved his children alone with an insane woman and keeps throwing more crap at her all the time? An abusive one.

or one who loves her dearly, is scared to death and in denial, really doesn't understand what's going on, and believes that prayer is the only way to solve problems... i mean, i kinda get an "abusive" (or at least an "extremely controlling/*i* wear the pants") vibe from him too, but i dunno. i wonder how much it would take to convince me that someone i loved had gone completely, dangerously nuts. she was a quiet woman and her outward symptoms were probably easily dismissed.

[Houdini]

As someone who just got finished working at a forensic psych facility, where people who have killed their parents, etc., b/c voices told them to, or they were in severe psychotic depression or drug-induced states, from what I know (albeit very little) of this case, it sounds like she did not know it was wrong at the time.

Does she meet all the criteria for NGRI? Probably not, but I don't know the case's details. But it looks like she wasn't able to tell right from wrong AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE. Does this excuse her? Hell no. But should she be in jail or in a forensic psych facility for life or at least a very, very long time? I'd vote for the latter.

[Jenny]

:stupid: :heh:



or one who loves her dearly, is scared to death and in denial, really doesn't understand what's going on, and believes that prayer is the only way to solve problems... i mean, i kinda get an "abusive" (or at least an "extremely controlling/*i* wear the pants") vibe from him too, but i dunno. i wonder how much it would take to convince me that someone i loved had gone completely, dangerously nuts. she was a quiet woman and her outward symptoms were probably easily dismissed.

But I think (and someone can tell me if I'm wrong) he has admitted that he knew something was wrong. That he was afraid for her and the kids sometimes.

I dunno, I just have a hard time believing that he didn't know anything was wrong. And to even have an idea that something wasn't quite right and still pump her full of babies and leave her home alone with 5 of them... He's guilty as sin as far as I'm concerned. :angry:

[welfareloser]

well, yeah... he knew something was wrong. but he obviously didn't know HOW wrong it was up in her head... whether or not he should have known is up for debate, but again, what would it take to convince you that your husband was about to kill your kid? probably more than what she was displaying.

[molecularfire]

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

[Sirrich3]

This story still makes me sick....

[PoorAvatar]

But I think (and someone can tell me if I'm wrong) he has admitted that he knew something was wrong. That he was afraid for her and the kids sometimes.

I dunno, I just have a hard time believing that he didn't know anything was wrong. And to even have an idea that something wasn't quite right and still pump her full of babies and leave her home alone with 5 of them... He's guilty as sin as far as I'm concerned. :angry:

Yes, 100%, Yes!