Texas mom's murder convictions overturned
 

Texas mom's murder convictions overturned
CTV.ca News Staff

The Texas mother currently serving a life sentence for drowning her five kids in a bathtub will get another trial. Andrea Yates has had her conviction overturned.

In a decision issued Thursday, the Texas First Court of Appeals reversed Yates' capital murder conviction, saying the original trial judge was wrong not to declare a mistrial back in 2002.

During that trial, Yates' attorneys argued that post-partum depression had made her insane at the time she lured her children to the bathroom, one by one, drowning each of them in a tub filled with cold water.

Prosecutors conceded Yates was suffering some form of mental illness, but countered with their own argument -- that she was still able to distinguish right from wrong.

In Texas, that's considered the legal test for insanity.

It took a jury less than four hours to convict Yates of drowning three of her kids, who ranged in age from 6 months to seven years. Although she was eligible for the death penalty, the jury sentenced her to life in prison.

When it was over, her legal team vowed to appeal on the grounds a prosecution expert witness had given damning, but false evidence during the trial.

Last month, her lawyers argued at a Houston appeal court that psychiatrist Park Dietz misled the court during Yates' murder trial. Dietz had testified that he consulted on an episode of the popular TV show Law & Order, in which a woman who drowned her children is found innocent by reason of insanity.

Testimony during her trial indicated Yates watched the television series.

No such episode existed, they said, but the mere suggestion of it could have planted doubts in the jurors' minds.

In its ruling Thursday, the court agreed.

"We conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Dr. Dietz's false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury," the three-judge panel wrote in its decision.

"We further conclude that Dr. Dietz's false testimony affected the substantial rights of appellant."

With files from The Associated Press

http://g.msn.com/0US!s6.73430_734763/2.d7371/3??cm=CTVNews

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well for one, I think the shrink should have charges against him for relaying false information, but how about a new trial? I'm sure the insanity plea is the reason but is it a good reason?

How does one prove insanity as opposed to premeditation of murder? What conditions apply to those convicted of murder or that of insanity regarding future parole possibilities? Is it possible she may not serve jail time or have a reduced sentence if found insane? What's fair and what should be fair punishment?

Yeah, I read about this, just this morning.
May the gods deliver us from trial lawyers.
A woman that drowns her 5 children gets her conviction overturned because of an episode of, or rather the lack of an episode of Law and Order?

This is the world in which we live.

She should be round guilty for reasons of drowning her kids in a bathtub...

The media circus that will accompany this new trial will be appalling. I also don't see how she could possibly ever get a new trial with an impartial jury, is there anyone who hasn't read about this case?

She wasn't given the death penalty, and probably should have been, insane or not, it's hard to be non-emotional about this, but this woman coldly murdered her 5 children, one by one, and if I remember correctly, she chased the oldest boy around the house because he tried to escape. I don't get what giving her a new trial is going to prove.

I have always been of the opinion, that Rusty, her husband, is not without blame in this case. This woman had more than one suicide attempt, and left his children alone with her.

Dietz seems to get around:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...715595,00.html

This woman's acts of murder are so far beyond understanding, she must be (have been) insane. However in my opinion anyone capable of doing what she did should never be free again.

The Law and Order episode or lack thereof being used as an excuse for a new trial seems ridiculous.

It doesn't just seem ridiculous...it is ridiculous. But...fine. Since her lawyers are so adament on her conviction being overturned, then...overturn it. Simple. Done. Providing...that since she no longer has a home, or gainful employment, she be required to provide her full time services as a live in nanny, for her attorney.

So I guess she wasn't retarded enough to execute?

drowing FIVE children in a row isn't post partum depression, it's serial murder. She might've been suffering from some mental problems, but you don't just recover from killing your five children. Be it in a mental institution or prison, she deserves to be locked far away from society.

And your years of clinical psychology practice and experience lead you to that conclusion, do they bermuDa?

Of course this woman was nuts. That's obvious. One doesn't murder one's own children, out of the blue, when you're of sane mind.

I'm not sure her current conviction should be overturned. It seems just another example of annoying pedantic nit-picking in trial procedures; procedures that I guess you are lumbared with to ensure a fair system. But nonetheless, it does leave an unpleasant taste in the mouth.

I don't support the death penalty.


Mr Mephisto

Don't worry about it kids...we have a way of putting them down so they DON"T come back---maybe they will get it right this time..

We got one more in Brownsville to do the same with---she just held her 3 kids while her husband cut their heads off....

They are sharpening his needle, as we speak..VG

i didn't say she wasn't suffering from mental problems, but that the liklihood of her rehabilitation is slim to none. I'm not sure where the death penalty came into play... i was under the impression that she was serving life in prison.

if we all agree that this woman was insane when she committed this crime what do we gain from punishing her? If she is *still* insane (which seems likely as one would think that level of insanity would be very difficult to recover from) and thus still a danger to society then clearly she should not be allowed to be unsupervised in society. But i do not see how killing her or putting her in prison for life is likely to improve the situation for anyone.

additionally this is how our legal system works -- people are allowed to appeal cases in an effort to find balance in the system. the;re not letting her back out on the street the're granting her a new trial. If we remove this level of appeal we risk allowing wrongly convicted individuals to be unnecessarily punished.

and Mal: i completely agree that her husband should not go blameless. he's claiming to be sane and yet he left his children with a women who was clearly mentally compromised.

Sorry, my tongue in cheek comment may have come out as criticism.

I only mentioned the death penalty in relation to maleficient's comment on the same topic.

I guess my post was a bit mixed up!


Mr Mephisto

Why should her husband be blamed? My understanding if memory serves me correct was that this woman was on medication and stopped taking it unbenounced to her husband.

What next? Her doctor to share blame for prescribing her medication and not following up everytime she was to take her meds.? Or her pharmacist? Maybe her dead kids are to blame posthumously for not reminding mommy it's pill time.

But the issue will come up as it has before blaming the husband. I can't wait for CNN's Larry King to have Gloria Allred on his panel crucifying her husband as she did before when the trial was ongoing.

Maybe one doctor can be of blame but the husband bit is hard to swallow;

Profile of Andrea Yates

Education and Achievements: Andrea (Kennedy) Yates was born on July 2, 1964 in Houston, Tex. She graduated from Milby High School in Houston in 1982. She was the class valedictorian, captain of the swim team and an officer in the National Honor Society. She completed a two-year pre-nursing program at the University of Houston and then graduated in 1986 from the University of Texas School of Nursing in Houston. She worked as a registered nurse at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center from 1986 until 1994.

Andrea Meets Rusty Yates: Andrea and Rusty Yates, both 25, met at their apartment complex in Houston. Andrea, who was usually reserved, initiated the conversation. Andrea had never dated anyone until she turned 23 and prior to meeting Rusty she was healing from a broken relationship. They eventually moved in together and spent much of their time involved in religious study and prayer. They were married on April 17, 1993. They shared with their guests that they planned on having as many children as nature provided.

Andrea Called Herself "Fertile Myrtle": In their eight years of marriage, the Yates had five children; four boys and one girl. Andrea stopped jogging and swimming when she became pregnant with her second child. Friends say that she became reclusive. The decision to home-school the children seemed to feed her isolation.
The Yates Children:
Feb. 26, 1994 – Noah Yates, Dec. 12, 1995 - John Yates, Sept. 13, 1997 - Paul Yates, Feb. 15, 1999 - Luke Yates, and on Nov. 30, 2000 - Mary Yates was the last child to be born.

Their Living Conditions: Rusty accepted work in Florida in 1996 and the family moved into a 38-foot travel trailer in Seminole, FL While in Florida, Andrea got pregnant, but miscarried. In 1997 they returned to Houston and lived in their trailer because Rusty wanted to "live light." The next year. Rusty decided to purchase a 350-square-foot, renovated bus which became their permanent home. Luke was born bringing the number of children to four. Living conditions were cramped and Andrea's insanity began to surface.

Michael Woroniecki: Michael Woroniecki was a traveling minister from whom Rusty purchased their bus and whose religious views had influenced both Rusty and Andrea. Rusty only agreed with some of Woroniecki's ideas but Andrea embraced the extremist sermons. He preached, "the role of women is derived from the sin of Eve and that bad mothers who are going to hell create bad children who will go to hell." Andrea was so totally captivated by Woroniecki that Rusty and Andrea's family grew concerned.

Andrea’s First Suicide Attempt : On June 16 1999, Andrea called Rusty and begged him to come home. He found her shaking involuntarily and chewing on her fingers. The next day, she was hospitalized after she tried to commit suicide by taking an overdose of pills. She was transferred to the Methodist Hospital psychiatric unit and diagnosed with a major depressive disorder. The medical staff described Andrea as evasive in discussing her problems. However, on June 24 she was prescribed an antidepressant and released.

Spiraling Downward: Once home, Andrea did not take the medication and as a result she began to self mutilate and refused to feed her children because she felt they were eating too much. She thought there were video cameras in the ceilings and said that the characters on television were talking to her and the children. She told Rusty about the hallucinations, yet neither of them informed Andrea's psychiatrist, Dr. Starbranch. On July 20, Andrea put a knife to her neck and begged her husband to let her die.

Warned About the Risks of Having More Babies : Andrea was again hospitalized and stayed in a catatonic state for 10 days. After being treated with an injection of different drugs that included Haldol, an anti-psychotic drug, her condition immediately improved. Rusty was optimistic about the drug therapy because Andrea appeared more like the person he first met. Dr. Starbranch warned the Yates that having another baby might bring on more episodes of psychotic behavior. Andrea was placed on out-patient care and prescribed Haldol.

New Hopes for the Future : Andrea's family urged Rusty to buy a home instead of returning Andrea to the cramped space of the bus. He purchased a nice home in a peaceful neighborhood. Once in her new home, Andrea's condition improved to the point that she returned to past activities like swimming, cooking and some socializing. She was also interacting well with her children. She expressed to Rusty that she had strong hopes for the future but still viewed her life on the bus as her failure.

The Tragic End: In March of 2000, Andrea, on Rusty's urging, became pregnant and stopped taking the Haldol. On November 30, 2000, Mary was born. Andrea was coping but on March 12, her father died and immediately her mental state digressed. She stopped talking, refused liquids, mutilated herself, and would not feed Mary. She also frantically read the Bible.
By the end of March Andrea returned to a different hospital. Her psychiatrist, Dr. Mohammed Saeed, treated her briefly with Haldol but discontinued it, saying that she did not did not seem psychotic. Andrea was released only to return again in May. She was released in 10 days and in her last follow-up visit with Saeed, she was told to think positive thoughts and to see a psychologist.

Two days later, Rusty left for work and before his mother arrived to help, Andrea began to put into action the thoughts that had consumed her for two years.

Andrea filled the tub with water and beginning with Paul, she systematically drowned the three youngest boys, then placed them on her bed and covered them. Mary was left floating in the tub. The last child alive was the first born, seven-year-old Noah. He asked his mother what was wrong with Mary, then turned and ran away. Andrea caught up with him and as he screamed, she dragged him and forced him into the tub next to Mary's floating body. He fought desperately, coming up for air twice, but Andrea held him down until he was dead. Leaving Noah in the tub, she brought Mary to the bed and laid her in the arms of her brothers.

During Andrea's confession she explained her actions by saying that she wasn't a good mother and that the children were "not developing correctly" and she needed to be punished.

Her controversial trial lasted three weeks. The jury found Andrea guilty of capital murder, but rather then recommending the death penalty, they vorted for life in prison. At the age of 77, in the year 2041, Andrea will be eligible for parole.

http://crime.about.com/od/current/p/andreayates.htm

A person who is on anti-psychotic medication has noticable changes when they stop taking it, so that she stopped unbeknownst to him, I don't completely buy, maybe there were no changes in her behavior, but I doubt it.

He shares some responsibility, and I am sure this will be on his conscience for the rest of his life, he left a woman who had multiple suicide attempts home with his children. It was Andrea's decision to murder her children, but I don't think that Rusty is completely blameless, he won't ever get put on trial, but, in my little world, I wouldn't mind seeing it.

Fair enough. I think he tried to keep his family together though. I don't know what it would be like having a loved one, his wife going through what she was going through but I could imagine he was trying to protect his kids by showing that the family was normal.

Should he be blamed and tried for being her husband? I would say about as much as Amber Fry should be blamed and tried for being being Scott Petersen's girlfriend.

No one is advocating assigning equal amounts of blame to both Rusty and Andrea. However, the fact remains that there were lots of outward signs that Andrea was mentally unstable and I think it's highly possible that there would have been additional obvious signs if you were living in the house with Andrea. I find it suspect that this woman was expected to continue to be the primary care giver to 5 children while in obvious psychological distress.

I think this case (And, arguably many murder cases) is much more complicated than the media has painted it; i very much doubt that Andrea was nothing more than an evil women who hates her children and i think society would benefit more from research into WHY she would commit such a horrible act than from only condemning her and doling out punishment.

put her back behind bars. waht next letting Manson out of prison?

I spoke to someone involved in Law and Order, and it seems like the psychologist pulled that out of his ass. He had nothing to do with the show. It's obvious that she's guilty, but if major evidence in the case is perjury, then yeah, she does deserve a new trial where she will be convicted lawfully.

Whether she was eye rolling, mouth frothing insane or coldly, caculatingly lucid, she still murdered 5 innocents and should be executed.

I agree with Stick in the post above. She murdered, not hit, kick, slapped...MURDERED.. innocent children. She deserves to die in my opinion.

Robin Williams talks about Texas putting in an express lane when it comes to executions in Texas. I wish they would sometimes.

As far as I remember, the issue with her insanity defense is not whether she'll go scot free or serve life in prison, but whether she'll serve out the rest of her life in prison or in a mental institution. If she ever were rehabilitated, I'm sure the loss of her family would be punishment enough.

Also, re: killing all 5 kids and chasing one around the house, she didn't do it just because she didn't like the kids. She killed them because she was convinced - CONVINCED - that she was evil, had irreparably damaged them, and the only way to save their immortal souls was to kill them while they were young and relatively innocent, before she had a chance to corrupt them further. She's plainly off her rocker, and if this doesn't count as insanity, then what the fuck does?!?

I'm sorry, but I just don't see any reason to let this chick out. She killed 5 kids. Post pardem or not, 5 kids is unforgivable. One kid is unforgivable, never mind 5. What are these people thinking?

I strongly agree; postpartum depression is a real issue. We have a member on the board whose wife was talking calmly about suicide shortly after she had given birth; I understand that she's getting treatment now. The key about insanity is that it is very hard for the person who is insane/depressed to recognize it and do something constructive about it.

Would I be upset if my wife killed my child? Damn straight. Postpartum depression was covered in our birthing classes, and my wife was having a very rough time dealing with the quantity of painkillers in her system after her C-section. Yes, I kept a close eye on her to make sure that she didn't slip as far as depression, because that was my responsibility.

Again, the issue is not "letting her out." Regardless of what the court decides, she's going to spend the rest of her life in some kind of institution - the issue is whether it's a mental institution or a prison.

She's absolutely guilty - that's not in dispute - the issue is whether she's culpable. For all you people who are so quick to judge, I don't think you grasp the complexity of the issue or the precedent it could set for other cases.

as far as this case goes, i believe it's hard to say that she was "insane" when committing the murder because she killed all 5 children individually. in other words, she called in one child, drowned him/her, dressed him/her, placed him/her in bed... repeated that 4 times, and then called her husband. there were also some things she had said prior to the murders that seemed to hint there was a bit of premeditation.
as far as the religious angle on her... her and her husband had some strange understanding of their relationship with God and with each other and with other people. but i digress.

having worked in a hospital for 2 years now on many different services (none psychiatric yet, that's a month away) i've seen people whom most would call crazy. whether they're septic (overwhelming infection), off their psychiatric medications, or something else, i've found that people's actions can be erratic, extreme, and volatile.
i had one woman, who was septic, a drug abuser (iv cocaine/heroin), who needed a lumbar puncture. the intern, myself, and a 4th year neurology resident tried to hold her down to get this done, and she yelled out "i'm going to bite you, aaaaaaahhh" and she tried to bite me in the groin! i still took care of her (of course making sure to keep my groin away from her, lol) every day. when she began to get better, i asked her about it and she had no recollection. she didn't remember being in the er (where the incident occurred), and really didn't remember much of anything.

whether this rises to the level of "insanity" or not, i'm unsure as this is an area of law that i'm definitely not well versed in. but i could see how someone can act "outside of themselves", but would tend to think it would be a fleeting moment in time (though i couldn't put a specified amount of time on that). that's not to say, however, that i think that people who are declared "insane" should be let off the hook. rather, i'm just saying that i understand.

but i do think the courts uphold mental competence as a standard, i.e. being mentally fit to stand trial. if one is not mentally competent to understand what they were doing, what the charges are... where do we go?
in the charge of murder, one has to prove intent. if the person did not intend to kill the person, then it would fall to the level of manslaughter.

i believe this is where the problems come in. the d.a. can only charge the person with one crime related to said dead victim... in other words, the d.a. must charge the perpetrator with murder or manslaughter. murder, depending on the degree (1st, 2nd, 3rd) tends to hold a longer sentence than manslaughter. perhaps if the d.a. weren't so zealous to pursure a murder charge (again, where intent must be proved) and would go with a manslaughter charge (don't have to prove intent, just that the crime was committed by the alleged perpetrator), they would have more convictions.

idk... sorry if i've added confusion to the discussion, as this feels like streaming consciousness, rather than a coherent essay/post of sorts. i feel like i'm playing both sides of the fence.

also of note, depression generally leads to suicidal thoughts, not murderous thoughts... in other words, depressed people, if allowed, may try to kill themselves, not kill others. that's not to say it can't happen, since the lawyers seem to be saying that's what did happen.

Just a note of clarification - she was suffering and being treated for postpartum psychosis, not postpartum depression, right?

I think you might be right there. Also, I stand corrected, I thought they were thinking of letting her out of jail. Yes, she was being treated for psycosis, not depression, there of course is a big difference. Depression is just that depression, psychosis will make you do things you wouldn't normally do.

So that everyone is on the same page...
Note those last two sentences.

Ok, first I'm very disgusted and angry that this could happen. I mean, I don't care what her exuse is she still killed her 5 (FIVE. Not one. You'd think you'd calm down after killing the first one, right? Not this woman, though. She's gotta go through all five before she notices something's "not right") children. And now she's free? Um, how about NO.

Second, I was watching the today show, and some woman was on there talking about how Yates really "brought awareness to the issue." I had to stop for a second. I mean, first she murders 5 children, then we let her off, and now someone's daring to suggest that there's anything good in this? Should she be a spokesperson now?

Ugh. Am I wrong for wishing she gets hit by a car?

ok, AGAIN, she is **NOT** going to go free. No one is proposing that she be let out of prison and allowed to have and kill more children. And if you believe that she is insane then you cannot expect anyone to provide an acceptable rational for her actions. Insane people do not act based on logical decisions.

The main moral question for our society is what is the fair and just wayto treat this woman? If we agree that she is mentally ill then is it really fair to commit her to a life in prison (keeping in mind that arguably ANYONE could at some point become mentally insane.), and how would society benefit from this action? I don't think any of us directly benefits from punishing individuals (esp mentally ill individuals) just for the sake of revenge. Ideally our penal system should work to improve society and minimize future crimes not just to deal out some arbitrary form of punishment.

So, you are suggesting that a cure for psychosis is to act it out, then *bing* you are automatically snapped back to normal?

Yes, that was a little snippy, sorry about that. I am fortunate that I have never known or had to deal with anyone that was psychotic; however, I'm pretty sure that it doesn't work the way most of the people in this thread seem to think that it does.

true, insane people do not act based on logical decisions... i would even argue that they are completely irrational/illogical (trying to have a conversation with a psychotic person, if you're not trained, can be completely exhausting... and can still be if you're trained).

i am unsure of what the fair and just way to treat the woman is. as i said earlier, the way in which she killed her childern (seemingly in a systematic way, from youngest to oldest) seems a bit odd... as if she may have been insane, or she may have thought about the way to do it previously, and then did it just that way (but i guess you'd have to be "insane" to think like that and do it!). in any event, at the most basic level, we must balance her right as an individual with the right of the society at large to be safe. at a higher level, she needs to be safe as well. she stated that both her and her kids needed to be punished. the kids punishment apparently was death. i wonder what she believes her punishment to be?

in my eyes, at the very least, she needs a lot of hospitalization and probably a lot of antipsychotic medication.

for argument's sake, if she is now functioning well mentally, and understands what she did, what will she do now? will she still hold those religious beliefs (which of course she's free to believe) she held before? will she be able to be a functioning member of society? i don't know.

i think that regardless of what happens (whether it's prison, or a state psychiatric facility, or free in society) she has a hard life ahead of her. she killed her 5 kids, and has a husband (i wonder if they are still legally married) who literally had everything taken away from him.

Just to repeat some above. She is still in prison. They might have another trial, but the Supreme Court gets to hear the argument again. And, Being a Texan and having the most conservative State Supreme Court in the US, I can tell you that she will stay in jail and this crappy ruling will be overturned.

If that judge was elected to his post he won’t be next time. But, I think that he was placed there.

even her defense team agrees that she needs to be in the custody that she's in now.

redlemon puts it nicely. the problem with trying to evaluate the guilt of someone with pyschosis is that we've never experienced anything like it. it is a genuine disease, and can cause terrifying breaks with reality. she needs medical help (in a confined setting) until she recovers.

Exactly why I still believe that her husband is not without guilt. Reading thru the details of the original case, as posted above. She had the fifth child, at her husband's urging. Did that urging put into motion, a series of events, that had he not wanted that 5th child... we wouldn't be talking about this now?

We'll never know I suppose, but I really hope that Rusty doesn't sleep much any more...

I think roderick brings up a good point. How culpable is Rusty Yates himself? Taking someone off of Haldol without a doctor's knowledge or advice is dangerous, dangerous business--it is, if I'm not mistaken, a pretty hefty anti-psychotic. Add to that the knowledge that she would suffer post-partum psychosis...I think he's at least guilty of some form of manslaughter (willingly putting another's life in danger).

As for Yates herself, if she truly is psychotic, even now she needs mental health care that a prison is not going to provide. She is not going to ever leave institutional care (whether it be in prison or a mental institution again) so for her own sake society ought to think about placing her in a mental institution instead of prison. Rehabilitation isn't the issue--adequate care is. In a Texan prison, Andrea Yates would be nothing but a number. The truly mentally ill deserve better care than that.