[angelize56]

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.

[columbo]

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.

[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.

[DiSaidSo]

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.

[DiSaidSo]

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.

[angelize56]

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!

[linskyjack]

NO big deal--she will be retried and convicted. Lying is cause for appeal and she deserves the new trial.

[DiSaidSo]

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]

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]

LOL--I'm just don't want you to get off to a good start at your new job!

[Infidel_Kastro]

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.

[Rep]

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.

[DiSaidSo]

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.

[linskyjack]

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]

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....