The journey from there to here

Andrea Yates, the Texas mom convicted of drowning her children, had her conviction overturned by an appeals court based on misinformation from a prosecution witness (story below). This gives some hope, in my opinion and those of many mental health advocates, for Yates to receive a conviction and sentence that will provide her with the mental help she needs for some very serious psychological problems she has.

Texas Mom's Murder Convictions Overturned


2 hours, 29 minutes ago
Add to My Yahoo!  U.S. National - AP

By MICHAEL GRACZYK, Associated Press Writer

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.

Photo
AP Photo

AP Photo Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow Slideshow: Texas Mom's Murder Convictions Overturned

Video Court Overturns Yates' Drowning Convictions
(AP Video)
 

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.


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jan 07, 2005

The first time that I heard about the whole story about this, I thought "Why would anyone let an extremely depressed woman take care of and home school 5 children under the age of 7 by herself?"  Her family *knew* that she was massively depressed, but they still left her alone.

I had depression after my daughter was born.  She had severe colic (which lasted for 6 months) and I had a really bad flare of Lupus which caused me to go bald.  I asked for help.  I demanded help.  I never had an urge to harm my baby, but I also knew that my mind was not in a happy place, and the help was needed to make sure that my child and I never were in harms way.  There is no reason that any mother should allow herself to get to a point where she may harm her child.  She could have called the police, and they would have been there to get her to help and take the children to safety.  It just doesn't make sense.

I don't believe that she should walk away from this.  I don't believe that anyone who could kill their own children should be "free".  A woman that is so mentally ill that they would kill their own child is so mentally ill that they could do anything.  A mother's first instinct is to protect her child.  If a mother can not do that, then she should be in an institution.  I don't think that life in prison is the answer.  I think that life in a mental institution would be better.  And, she needs to be made blatantly aware of what she did.

There are so many people that spend tens of thousands of dollars to adopt just one child.  She had 5, and she killed them all.  It really makes me sick.

on Jan 07, 2005

Karma,


She won't walk away from this, that much is certain. The overturning of her conviction reopens the possibility that she will be able to receive another sentence that puts her into a mental health facility for the remainder of her life rather than in a prison, which is ill-equipped to deal with someone with the complex mental problems this woman possesses (coupled with the fact that her lucid moments muct be spent with the guilt of knowing what she has done...a guilt that makes her sentence more appropriate than many realize).


What many people do not realize where Yates is concerned, is that the high profile of her case, coupled with the extreme brutality of her actions, already necessitate her cost of incarceration to be above that of the average prisoner. While we (as well as her attorney, who has publicly stated he will NOT seek her release) realize she needs to spend the rest of her life behind bars, the ever present question is "where?".


And this decision increases the likelihood that her time will be served at a more appropriate facility.

on Jan 07, 2005

Rusty made commitments of Andrea's time and resources without being willing to back them up with his own full time support, an attitude that is far too prevalent in this day and age. He shirked his responsibilities as a man and a father, and then played the role of the victim as Andrea slowly deteriorated. I personally believe he was MORE culpable than Andrea, because, as one who was "mentally stable", he was in a position to better gauge Andrea's declining mental state (if nothing else, he could have/should have listened to others who DID see her deteriorating.

So true, Gideon. I have tried to homeschool my three children. It takes a total commitment from both parents and was still more than I could handle.

But she WAS a victim in another sense, of an overbearing, domineering and selfish husband, and while that does not mitigate her actions, it does gall me that he has not had to face any liability for his actions.

I agree totally. She is a danger to herself and others. She has and will receive her punishment through her incarceration for the rest of her life. Rusty was on Larry King last night playing the victimized husband role, and it made me sick.

Gideon and Karma,

I loved your comments. I may copy and paste them into the comment section of my Culpability article if you don't mind. A few people there are giving me a hard time about my stance and could benefit from your writings.

 

on Jan 07, 2005
The overturning of her conviction reopens the possibility that she will be able to receive another sentence that puts her into a mental health facility for the remainder of her life rather than in a prison, which is ill-equipped to deal with someone with the complex mental problems this woman possesses


Your assuming that anyone in a mental health facility against their will can be "helped". Mental health requires a desire and effort of the patient. No process of psychology will do anything more for this woman than a prison, if she has no desire or motivation to aid in her own treatment.

For that matter, what happens if she does aid in her treatment and is "cured" of her mental illness? Do we then let her go free? Or do we have her transfered to a regular prison? If the promise to her is that she'll go free if she is "cured" then all she has to do is convince the psychiatrists that she is "ready" and she goes on her merry way, whether actually cured or not. If she only has prison to look forward to, then what is her motivation to cooperate anyway?
on Jan 07, 2005

Para,


Very interesting questions. I think, in terms of diagnoses, her condition is not one that stands to be "cured". At any rate, she shouldn't go free, on that we both agree. It might be useful to defer to those more in the know on this end...

on Jan 07, 2005

I loved your comments. I may copy and paste them into the comment section of my Culpability article if you don't mind. A few people there are giving me a hard time about my stance and could benefit from your writings.


Feel free. I already chucked in a few comments of my own.

on Jan 07, 2005
Rusty was on Larry King last night playing the victimized husband role,


He shirked his responsibilities as a man and a father, and then played the role of the victim as Andrea slowly deteriorated.


Let's do anything but allow Rusty Yates the use of the "victim" card! The only victims here are the kids. Andrea and Rusty are perpetrators. The only question up for debate is which one of them is more vile.
on Jan 07, 2005

Andrea and Rusty are perpetrators. The only question up for debate is which one of them is more vile.

Agreed Para, they are both perpetrators. However one is and will be incarcerated for the rest of her life. The other is experiencing daily liberty and granted interviews for monetary gain.

on Jan 07, 2005
I loved your comments. I may copy and paste them into the comment section of my Culpability article if you don't mind. A few people there are giving me a hard time about my stance and could benefit from your writings.


I had actually already read both and gave Karma an insightful for hers. I am assuming you are referring to me as I am one of the few that didn't agree with you on that article. I apologize if you think I was giving you a hard time. You used my comments on this article as the bouncing point for writing that blog and therefore I felt entitled to defend my position--and I thought I was doing so respectfully (remember it was you who called my opinion ridiculous, not the other way around). However, I sincerely apologize if you felt like you were being attacked or if you thought I was giving you a hard time.

Gideon--My apologies for hijacking your blog.
on Jan 07, 2005

(remember it was you who called my opinion ridiculous, not the other way around).


I called your "statement" ridiculous. Not you or your opinion. I have no hard feelings, neither am I upset with you. I enjoy our lively debate.


on Jan 07, 2005
called your "statement" ridiculous. Not you or your opinion.


It was a statement of my opinion--which means the statement and the opinion are one in the same.

I just find that calling something "ridiculous" is a good way to dismiss someone statements/opinions without having to really think about them and why the person made them.

No hard feelings on this end either.
on Jan 07, 2005
I find it an item of interest that a lot of people want to go after the one person, who in reality and by the rules of law, did not commit a crime (the husband) but somehow want the one who did do the crime, skate- or at least do her time in a mental hospital. Does Andrea Yates deserve the death penalty? Well, she does meet the State of Texas requirements for such, I mean she did do it! but that will be up to her new jury to decide...
on Jan 07, 2005
don't believe in the death penalty, so I don't believe that she should be put to death. However, I also do not believe that anyone else is responsible for her actions other than herself. Yes, she might be mentally ill, but her husband is not her keeper, he does not control her. It is nice that your husband is concerned about you/cares about you enough to ask if you have taken your medication, but in my opinion, taking medication is the responsibility of the individual and no one else. This is just another attempt to shirk individual responsibility and place the blame elsewhere.


Shades, I agree with everything that you have said on this thread.

Any *murderer* should be punished, for all are insane. It is not sanity that allows someone to kill like this, so I think that this excuse of insanity for trying to get off easier should be cut. IT isn't right for someone to be allowed to have an easier go, or a chance at parole, or some such, by "reason of insanity." When it all comes down to it, that excuse is really used to get criminals an easier life.
on Jan 07, 2005

I just find that calling something "ridiculous" is a good way to dismiss someone statements/opinions without having to really think about them and why the person made them.


shades, I apologize if I portrayed that I had not given your statem thought. In fact, I believe I gave it a good deal of thought in my response even to the point of citing examples (which you agreed and acknowledged) of exceptions. I did not mean to offend you.


 

on Jan 07, 2005
Agreed Para, they are both perpetrators. However one is and will be incarcerated for the rest of her life. The other is experiencing daily liberty and granted interviews for monetary gain.


Agreed, which is also pretty vile.
3 Pages1 2 3