Posted on 07/26/2006 9:35:01 AM PDT by cajunman
HOUSTON -- Jurors reached a verdict in Andrea Yates' murder retrial Wednesday morning. The jury's decision will be announced at about 11:25 a.m. KPRC and Click2Houston will air the verdict live.
After deliberating nearly 11 hours, jurors returned for a third day Wednesday to determine if she was legally insane when she drowned her five children in the bathtub.
Before court ended Tuesday, the jury of six men and six women asked to review the state's definition of insanity: that someone, because of a severe mental illness, does not know a crime he is committing is wrong.
State District Judge Belinda Hill said jurors, who were sequestered for the second night, , could see the definition Wednesday morning.
Jurors have already deliberated longer than the nearly four hours it took a first jury, which convicted her in 2002. That conviction was overturned on appeal last year.
Yates, 42, has pleaded innocent by reason of insanity. She is charged in only three of the deaths, which is common in cases involving multiple slayings.
As court was to end Tuesday, jurors asked for one more hour to deliberate. But then the panel immediately passed another note rescinding that request. Hill quoted the note, which read, "We need some sleep," prompting laughs from those in the courtroom.
The jury earlier asked to review the videotape of Yates' July 2001 evaluation by Dr. Phillip Resnick, a forensic psychiatrist who testified for the defense that she did not know killing the children was wrong because she was trying to save them from hell.
Resnick told jurors that Yates was delusional and believed 6-month-old Mary, 2-year-old Luke, 3-year-old Paul, 5-year-old John and 7-year-old Noah would grow up to be criminals because she had ruined them.
Jurors later asked to review Yates' November 2001 videotaped evaluation by Dr. Park Dietz, the state's expert witness whose testimony led an appeals court to overturn Yates' 2002 capital murder conviction last year.
Dietz, a forensic psychiatrist, testified in her first trial that an episode of the television series "Law & Order" depicted a woman who was acquitted by reason of insanity after drowning her children. But no such episode existed. The judge barred attorneys in this trial from mentioning that issue.
On Tuesday, after jurors asked for the trial transcript involving defense attorney George Parnham's questioning of Dietz about the definition of obsessions, the judge brought the jury back into the courtroom.
The court reporter then read the brief transcript, in which Dietz said Yates "believed that Satan was at least present. She felt or sensed the presence." Dietz had testified that Yates' thoughts about harming her children were an obsession and a symptom of severe depression -- not psychosis.
Earlier Tuesday, jurors reviewed the slide presentation of the state's key expert witness, Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist who evaluated Yates in May. He testified that she did not kill her children to save them from hell as she claims, but because she was overwhelmed and felt inadequate as a mother.
Welner told jurors that although Yates was psychotic on the day of the June 2001 drownings, he found 60 examples of how she knew it was wrong to kill them.
If Yates is found innocent by reason of insanity, she will be committed to a state mental hospital, with periodic hearings before a judge to determine whether she should be released -- although by law, jurors are not allowed to be told that.
Yates will be sentenced to life in prison if convicted of capital murder.
A capital murder conviction in Texas carries either life in prison or the death penalty. Prosecutors could not seek death this time because the first trial's jurors sentenced her to life in prison, and authorities found no new evidence
And she should've been put to sleep for it.
LOL...well, I don't think a nanny is necessary, but I also believe SHE did not want that many children, HE did.
I know it doesn't. The original poster said that it should be available and I agree with that. Mentla condition does not and should not absolve you of responsibility for your actions. It would be a complete travesty if she ever saw the light of day again.
I have lost a child.
I didn't murder him.
And I didn't murder anybody after I lost him.
She deserved life in prison.
And don't try to make ME the problem because I am "emotional" about it.
Well, that's an interesting school. But, based on this philosophy all criminals are insane and can't be held accountable.
I think you need to check your facts. This is the exact verdict that was handed down.
I remembered that after my post. Has he had any more children with his current wife
Zackly.
That is the most ridiculous thing I've read in a while! Small families are a result of the birth control age. Prior to the 50's many families had several children and not many moms I've read of killed their children. Mothers killing their kids is a sign of the end times.
And don't try to say I must HATE her to think she deserved life in prison.
That just makes YOUR argument less valid.
Kitten, I am not referring to what she "heard", I am speaking to what is in the record as to what she DID. What she "heard" is a matter of her testimony which could well be a lie. Look, I'm saying that for someone who was "insane", her actions were very deliberate and evil. She hunted the children down. The oldest was big enough to fight her and she fought and subdued her own son, held him down and KILLED him.
"there is a lot of blood lust on the Free Republic forums."
Gets kinda depressing sometimes. This thread is going to be fun...
That former husband is a nut case also
You don't understand sarcasm do you?
The fact is that this jury blew it. The Texas insanity law requires only that the defendant knows right from wrong, not whether they were powerless to resist the urge to commit the crime.
She obviously knew what she did was wrong. She waited until she could get away with it. She called the police afterward. She didn't call them to chat about the weather.
I only hope that they now prosecute her for the other two murders and hope they get a jury who can understand the law.
I agree.
Right you are.
But it doesn't apply in Andrea's case. She had a rare and severe form of insanity. Just thank God you don't.
Precisely.
In circumstances like this, I'd like to put myself in the shoes of a young child, whose mother (who you always have loved and trusted) takes you and places you under water as you struggle water entering your nose and mouth as you attempt to fight for air, and panic until you lose consciousness horribly.
Multiply this by five... and suddenly, I have lost all compassion for the person who was suffering from some sort of depression.
When I was a teenager, I had an extremely hot temper. Should I therefore also sympathise with someone who has in a blind rage killed a love one? No.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.