There's no such thing as a stupid question, but they're the easiest to answer.
JoinTour
Login
 
Tag Cloud
acer black screen boot computer connection crash css dell display driver drivers email error ethernet excel explorer firefox firefox 3 game hard drive internet internet explorer itunes laptop lcd linux malware monitor network networking nvidia outlook outlook 2003 outlook express partition password printer problem router slow software sound trojan usb video virus vista windows windows xp wireless
Civilized Debate
Search
Search in:
 
Advanced Search
Tech Support Guy Forums > Community > Civilized Debate >
Judge Overturns Andrea Yates' Murder Convictions


HELLO AND WELCOME! Before you can post your question, you'll have to register -- it's completely free! Click here to join today! We highly recommend that you print a copy of our Guide for New Members. Enjoy!

View Poll Results: If Yates is retried, do you think she will be convicted again?
Yes. She will be convicted as she was in the first trial. 2 13.33%
Yes. She remains guilty as determined by the first trial. 1 6.67%
Yes. She is still guilty no matter what the circumstances! 6 40.00%
No. She will be found not guilty by reason of insanity. 6 40.00%
No. She will be found not guilty and released. 0 0%
Other. Please specify in your post. 0 0%
Voters: 15. You may not vote on this poll

 
Thread Tools
angelize56's Avatar
Always remembered in our hearts with 82,268 posts.
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Goddess of Random/Resident Angel
Experience: Learning it all here!
06-Jan-2005, 11:41 AM #1
Judge Overturns Andrea Yates' Murder Convictions
Texas Mom Convicted Of Drowning Five Children

POSTED: 9:34 am EST January 6, 2005
UPDATED: 11:08 am EST January 6, 2005

HOUSTON -- A state appeals court has overturned the capital murder convictions against Andrea Yates and ordered a new trial in the drownings of her children, who ranged in age from 6 months to 7 years.

The Houston mother was serving a life sentence for the 2001 drownings of three of her five children. All five children were drowned in a bathtub at the family's home.

The Texas First Court of Appeals issued its ruling in Houston today in a 12-page opinion signed by court Justice Sam Nuchia.

A three-judge panel found that the Harris County trial jury might have been prejudiced against Yates by the false testimony of a prosecution expert.

Park Dietz testified he consulted on an episode of the NBC-TV show "Law and Order" about a woman with postpartum depression acquitted by reason of insanity in the drowning of her children. It was later revealed that no such program existed.

"That is the one thing in this case that allowed the state to say this wasn't psychosis, it wasn't mental illness -- it was a conscious plan. Without the testimony of Dr. Dietz, the state would not have been able to make their case," Yates' appeal attorney Troy McKinney said. "This case boiled down to a battle of the experts and the powerful testimony of Dr. Dietz ultimately prevailed."

Harris County Assistant District Attorney Alan Curry said Dietz's testimony about the television show came during cross-examination by Yates' defense attorney. There were three weeks of testimony that dealt with Yates' plans to kill her children, ranging in age from six months to 7 years, and her knowledge that doing so was wrong, he said.

"Dr. Dietz did not suggest by that testimony or elsewhere that (Yates) used that episode in order to assist her in planning, premeditating or calculating the killing of her children," Curry wrote. "There was a great deal of other evidence which revealed that (Yates) planned and/or premeditated her killing of her children."

Curry cited a tape-recorded police interview with Yates in which she said she had thought about killing her children for two years and in the weeks leading up to the drownings had filled the bathtub with water but "didn't do it that time."

Her appeal cited 19 errors from her 2002 trial.

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.

Among the other errors cited by Yates' attorneys are the court's decision to show jurors the clothing the children were wearing when they died; the requirement that jurors be "death qualified" because the case involved capital murder charges, which can carry the death penalty; and the judge not informing jurors of the consequences of an innocent by reason of insanity verdict.

The appeal court's decision is expected in three to six months.

During her trial, psychiatrists testified Yates suffered from schizophrenia and postpartum depression, but defense and prosecution witnesses disagreed over the severity of her illness and whether it prevented her from knowing that drowning her children was wrong -- the two requirements to be declared legally insane in Texas. Jurors determined Yates knew it was wrong to kill her children and convicted her.

Yates, who will be eligible for parole in 2041, remains jailed at the Skyview Unit in Rusk, where she works in an outdoor flower garden and has janitorial duties.

Earlier this year, her husband, Russell, filed for divorce. He attended Tuesday's appeal and wasn't wearing a wedding ring.
__________________
June 18, 2007: My niece Christi had her baby GIRL! 10:15 a.m.....Emily Debra....7 Lbs. 10 Ozs....21" in length. She has a little dark hair...moves her lips and mouth so sweetly...has pretty petite features...thank you God!!
columbo's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 3,180 posts.
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Ontario, oh, oh...
Experience: Slapping around Mulder for years now
06-Jan-2005, 11:58 AM #2
Angel,

If this were taking place in California or New York (somewhat more "Liberal" states), then I might see the possibility of a "not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict. But seeing as the trial is taking place in Texas, I imagine that her retrial will result in her conviction being upheld (or whatever the legal term would be).

Not that this is a slur against (or cheer for) Texans or the Texas justice system, I just think that history shows that they're less inclined to accept the idea of a murderer not being "punished" (receiving justice).

I haven't reviewed any particular details of the case, besides what's been reported in the mainstream media, nor am I a legal scholar, so this is all just my uninformed opinion.
__________________
Peter: Aww things were going so good for me and Stewie, but now he hates me again. Brian what should I do to win him back?
Brian: That depends. Do you want my advice or are you just asking random questions again?
Peter: What's a hypotenuse?
Rep's Avatar
Rep Rep is offline
Distinguished Member with 3,381 posts.
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Wisconsin, USA
06-Jan-2005, 12:28 PM #3
I would hope that we do not put to death somebody whose conviction may be based on lies.

Sometimes it is important to step away from the horrendous crime details and make certain the process leading to conviction is followed well and correctly. If we do not, then we are all subject to erroneous conviction.
__________________
McCain in 08...Continuing the Bush legacy.
DiSaidSo's Avatar
Computer Specs
Distinguished Member with 18,186 posts.
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Heaven (aka Texas)
Experience: I put the "P" in PEBKAC
06-Jan-2005, 12:34 PM #4
Columbo~

She drowned five children. She planned it. She waited for her husband to leave and she killed them methodically, one by one. Can you imagine the terror that fifth child felt? She called 911 (showing that she knew she did something wrong), admitted it on that tape, and then admitted it again to an investigator (which I heard part of that tape today...positively chilling). She said that they were being brought up wrong. That they were deformed in some way. They were perfectly healthy children.

Is she insane? Yes. You would have to be to murder your own child. Now the part where it is just my opinion: She must be punished. This case is so high profile that something must be done. Our society cannot tolerate those nutjobs out there who see this happening and think that they can get away with anything and then just say they were insane and then they're basically off the hook for the whole thing. And I'm not entirely convinced that Andrea Yates is not one of those people.
__________________
82,268... We miss you, Angel!

Di said so. It is written therefore it shall be done. Amen. God bless America and parts of Canada.


Solutions nearly always come from the direction you least expect, which means there's no point in trying to look in that direction because it wont be coming from there. ~ Douglas Adams
DiSaidSo's Avatar
Computer Specs
Distinguished Member with 18,186 posts.
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Heaven (aka Texas)
Experience: I put the "P" in PEBKAC
06-Jan-2005, 12:42 PM #5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rep
I would hope that we do not put to death somebody whose conviction may be based on lies.

Sometimes it is important to step away from the horrendous crime details and make certain the process leading to conviction is followed well and correctly. If we do not, then we are all subject to erroneous conviction.
Rep~

From the news coverage I have heard and seen (which, I realize I'm not getting the whole story...I can't unless I'm on the jury), the witness in question was the psychiatrist called by the prosecution who said that Andrea got the "idea" to murder her children from a Law & Order episode. In the episode in question, a mother drowns her children and is set free when she is found not guilty by reason of insanity. After the trial was over, it was discovered that there was never an episode on that subject matter.

I completely agree with you that the process must be followed completely. But these are the kinds of incidents that make people not trust the justice system.

The fact remains that she murdered her children. She admitted it repeatedly. We know she did it. She cannot go unpunished.
__________________
82,268... We miss you, Angel!

Di said so. It is written therefore it shall be done. Amen. God bless America and parts of Canada.


Solutions nearly always come from the direction you least expect, which means there's no point in trying to look in that direction because it wont be coming from there. ~ Douglas Adams
angelize56's Avatar
Always remembered in our hearts with 82,268 posts.
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Goddess of Random/Resident Angel
Experience: Learning it all here!
06-Jan-2005, 12:45 PM #6
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiSaidSo
Is she insane? Yes. You would have to be to murder your own child. Now the part where it is just my opinion: She must be punished. This case is so high profile that something must be done. Our society cannot tolerate those nutjobs out there who see this happening and think that they can get away with anything and then just say they were insane and then they're basically off the hook for the whole thing. And I'm not entirely convinced that Andrea Yates is not one of those people.
You know I agree with you Di...even if some others think we lack compassion! As in the other thread....we feel for the children here! I remember how it said the last little boy was chased around the house before she drowned him...and no...I can't imagine his terror...especially since baby Mary was already floating dead in the tub when this monster dragged him in and drowned him!! I can't imagine what any of the children went through as they were simultaneuosly drowned one by one! She needs to be punished....and for LIFE...whether in a prison or a mental institution...she does not deserve to EVER walk free again! The crime is just too detestable!
__________________
June 18, 2007: My niece Christi had her baby GIRL! 10:15 a.m.....Emily Debra....7 Lbs. 10 Ozs....21" in length. She has a little dark hair...moves her lips and mouth so sweetly...has pretty petite features...thank you God!!
linskyjack's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 22,461 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
06-Jan-2005, 12:46 PM #7
NO big deal--she will be retried and convicted. Lying is cause for appeal and she deserves the new trial.
DiSaidSo's Avatar
Computer Specs
Distinguished Member with 18,186 posts.
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Heaven (aka Texas)
Experience: I put the "P" in PEBKAC
06-Jan-2005, 12:52 PM #8
Quote:
Originally Posted by linskyjack
NO big deal--she will be retried and convicted. Lying is cause for appeal and she deserves the new trial.
I hope you're right, linsky.

(Gah, it's so WEIRD saying that! )
Infidel_Kastro's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 5,384 posts.
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nation of Texas
06-Jan-2005, 12:53 PM #9
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiSaidSo
I hope you're right, linsky.

(Gah, it's so WEIRD saying that! )
i know, thats twice today. LJ is totally messing up my month.
linskyjack's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 22,461 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
06-Jan-2005, 01:02 PM #10
LOL--I'm just don't want you to get off to a good start at your new job!
Infidel_Kastro's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 5,384 posts.
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nation of Texas
06-Jan-2005, 02:04 PM #11
Prosecutors To Appeal After Andrea Yates' Convictions Overturned
Texas Mom Convicted Of Drowning Her Children

POSTED: 9:34 am EST January 6, 2005
UPDATED: 12:29 pm EST January 6, 2005

HOUSTON -- Prosecutors in Texas say they plan to appeal Thursday’s ruling that tosses out the murder convictions of Andrea Yates.

A state appeals court has overturned the capital murder convictions against Yates and ordered a new trial in the drownings of her children, who ranged in age from 6 months to 7 years.


The Houston mother was serving a life sentence for the 2001 deaths. All five children were drowned in a bathtub at the family's home.

On June 20, 2001, Yates drowned her four sons and infant daughter in the family's bathtub. She then placed the four youngest victims on a bed and covered them with a sheet. Yates left her oldest son's body floating face down in the bathtub. She called police and told them what she had done. Yates said that Satan ordered her to kill her five children to save them from eternal damnation.

The Texas First Court of Appeals issued its ruling in Houston today in a 12-page opinion signed by court Justice Sam Nuchia.

A three-judge panel found that the Harris County trial jury might have been prejudiced against Yates by the false testimony of a prosecution expert.

A prosecutor in Houston said he would ask for a re-hearing by the appeals court. He said if that fails, he would appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

Park Dietz testified he consulted on an episode of the NBC-TV show "Law and Order" about a woman with postpartum depression acquitted by reason of insanity in the drowning of her children. It was later revealed that no such program existed.

"That is the one thing in this case that allowed the state to say this wasn't psychosis, it wasn't mental illness -- it was a conscious plan. Without the testimony of Dr. Dietz, the state would not have been able to make their case," Yates' appeal attorney Troy McKinney said. "This case boiled down to a battle of the experts and the powerful testimony of Dr. Dietz ultimately prevailed."

Harris County Assistant District Attorney Alan Curry said Dietz's testimony about the television show came during cross-examination by Yates' defense attorney. There were three weeks of testimony that dealt with Yates' plans to kill her children, and her knowledge that doing so was wrong, he said.


"Dr. Dietz did not suggest by that testimony or elsewhere that (Yates) used that episode in order to assist her in planning, premeditating or calculating the killing of her children," Curry wrote. "There was a great deal of other evidence which revealed that (Yates) planned and/or premeditated her killing of her children."

Curry cited a tape-recorded police interview with Yates in which she said she had thought about killing her children for two years and in the weeks leading up to the drownings had filled the bathtub with water but "didn't do it that time."

Her appeal cited 19 errors from her 2002 trial.

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.

Among the other errors cited by Yates' attorneys are the court's decision to show jurors the clothing the children were wearing when they died; the requirement that jurors be "death qualified" because the case involved capital murder charges, which can carry the death penalty; and the judge not informing jurors of the consequences of an innocent by reason of insanity verdict.

The appeal court's decision is expected in three to six months.

During her trial, psychiatrists testified Yates suffered from schizophrenia and postpartum depression, but defense and prosecution witnesses disagreed over the severity of her illness and whether it prevented her from knowing that drowning her children was wrong -- the two requirements to be declared legally insane in Texas. Jurors determined Yates knew it was wrong to kill her children and convicted her.

Yates, who will be eligible for parole in 2041, remains jailed at the Skyview Unit in Rusk, where she works in an outdoor flower garden and has janitorial duties.

Earlier this year, her husband, Russell, filed for divorce. He attended Tuesday's appeal and wasn't wearing a wedding ring.
__________________
Friends bail you out of jail.
Good Friends sit next to you in the cell saying " Dude, that was great!"
Friends help you move.
Good friends help you move bodies.
Rep's Avatar
Rep Rep is offline
Distinguished Member with 3,381 posts.
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Wisconsin, USA
06-Jan-2005, 03:02 PM #12
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiSaidSo
Rep~

From the news coverage I have heard and seen (which, I realize I'm not getting the whole story...I can't unless I'm on the jury), the witness in question was the psychiatrist called by the prosecution who said that Andrea got the "idea" to murder her children from a Law & Order episode. In the episode in question, a mother drowns her children and is set free when she is found not guilty by reason of insanity. After the trial was over, it was discovered that there was never an episode on that subject matter.

I completely agree with you that the process must be followed completely. But these are the kinds of incidents that make people not trust the justice system.

The fact remains that she murdered her children. She admitted it repeatedly. We know she did it. She cannot go unpunished.

DiSaidso - I also am not familar with the case. And I understand your comment about this type of thing creating distrust in the legal system. It does. Looking at it another way though, we could all gain more trust in a system that self evaluates itself rather than working on anger. We are all subject to being accused of doing something we did not do.

I agree, she cannot go unpunished. Yet, I would not like to see a system that punishes an innocent person in the future because we are so angry and frustrated with this type of case that we lower our standards. Once standards are lowered, we are all subject to that lower standrd.
__________________
McCain in 08...Continuing the Bush legacy.
DiSaidSo's Avatar
Computer Specs
Distinguished Member with 18,186 posts.
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Heaven (aka Texas)
Experience: I put the "P" in PEBKAC
06-Jan-2005, 03:25 PM #13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infidel_Kastro
During her trial, psychiatrists testified Yates suffered from schizophrenia and postpartum depression, but defense and prosecution witnesses disagreed over the severity of her illness and whether it prevented her from knowing that drowning her children was wrong -- the two requirements to be declared legally insane in Texas. Jurors determined Yates knew it was wrong to kill her children and convicted her.
She knew it was wrong. Or she wouldn't have a) called 911 or b) stopped herself multiple times before. That, to me, is the deciding factor, and an obvious one. This can have one of two after-effects. It can either needlessly expand the definition of insanity to mean someone who just cannot deal with life or it can make the definition more specific. To me (and this is just my opinion, no matter how right it might be), insanity is when you are no longer aware of and willing to deal with the world around you. You have created your own world of rights and possibly, no wrongs.

But as Rep said, the judicial system must me utilized correctly or it can't be trusted. I think the problem most people have with it is that one tiny mistake can blow the entire case. People work for months and months to try the case and then one thing (paperwork typo, reading Miranda rights at the wrong time, realizing your witness has got the wrong TV show) goes wrong and everyone has to start from scratch again. I hope common sense prevails in this case.
__________________
82,268... We miss you, Angel!

Di said so. It is written therefore it shall be done. Amen. God bless America and parts of Canada.


Solutions nearly always come from the direction you least expect, which means there's no point in trying to look in that direction because it wont be coming from there. ~ Douglas Adams
linskyjack's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 22,461 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
06-Jan-2005, 04:01 PM #14
Let say it wasn't someone who admited a heinous murder like Yates did----Let say it was someone who was actually innocent. I think the Texans showed us how the legal system is suppose to work!
angelize56's Avatar
Always remembered in our hearts with 82,268 posts.
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Goddess of Random/Resident Angel
Experience: Learning it all here!
07-Jan-2005, 04:19 AM #15
I'd be curious to see how she feels about a new trial...rehashing everything...reliving how she callously drowned her five innocent, defenseless children! Four of the five were old enough to comprehend her actions...how frightened they must have been....
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
WELCOME TO TECH SUPPORT GUY! Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question -- for free! Our site is run completely by volunteers who help people like you solve computer problems. See our Welcome Guide to get started.



Thread Tools


You Are Using:
Server ID
Advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:36 AM.
Copyright © 1996 - 2008 TechGuy, Inc. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin, Copyright © 2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.1.0
Powered by Cermak Technologies, Inc.