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
Get a grip.
Yes, I've noticed some posters have found Rusty guilty by reason of manhood.
Must be a Houston thing because here in Dallas they sentenced Darlene Routier to death for killing her kids.
We accept responsibility for what we do when we drink too much, though we are not in control of our facilities.
Diabetics are also responsible for what they do when they have low sugar blood, though in that state they have impaired judgment as well. They should carry around some food with them at all times if they wish to prevent this, despite the inconvenience.
Andrea Yates did not get there in a day. From everything I've read, it was a gradual process; she got there over the period of at least 5 years (the age of her oldest child, I believe), and clearly exhibited symptoms in addition to enough sanity during those years to function. She should've sought help, as was her responsibility to herself and to society. I would've voted guilty.
Sorry, didn't mean to start a catfight. You were just missing an important aspect of human nature. Pease.
But, of course he's guilty, he's the husband. Didn't you know that husbands are responsible for the actions of their wife? Women aren't beings capable of making their own decisions and being responsible for their choices.
Sorry, didn't mean to start a catfight. You were just missing an important aspect of human nature. Peace.
Logic isn't taught at this popular school. What do you think: This is Rome, Athens, Sparta, or the old republic?
Shouldn't her date be coming up soon? She seems to be on death row and incredibly long time for Texas.
I would disagree, as a devout Catholic I am pro life and that includes anti death penalty.
Is there a Guilty but Insane finding/choice in Texas?
"...BUT what about her whacko husband??"
Exactly, as he is the one, after being told that she should have NO more children, allowed her to have the final baby. He in not without guilt in this sad, sad situation. He, also, will answer to God.
It is so hard for us. Human beings are impatient creatures. If our heads are screwed on straight, and we have a proper sense and desire for justice, we want to see it happen, NOW. The OJ case was hard for me, as an example, because indiviual citizen pattyjo, had to come to grips with the fact that there would be no justice for the victims....in this lifetime.
In this case, I KNOW, from my personal experience, that it is entirely possible Andrea was just too sick to allow reason to prevail. Horrible, a monumental tragedy was the result.
Back to her former husband though, yes, HE should have cared for his wife. He should have loved her so much that her mental health and stability, and thus the security of his children, should have been his number one priority. It obviously was not.
pattyjo
'For Better or Worse' generally isn't considered to include murdering all 5 of your children.
Had he been the one to go crazy and murder all the children, I seriously doubt that many of the husband-bashers her would have been trying to co-blame her for the deaths.
I agree with you 100%...I was living in Houston when this all happened and it was heartbreaking to say the least. and Capt Useless (as someone earlier called him) should have been brought up on charges. He was repeatedly told she should have no more children after the 2nd or 3rd. the guy's a pig! He went off to work everyday, took as many TDYs as he could get, and made this woman home school these babies and never gave her any support or took any responsibility!
Of course her kids did not receive justice - it is an absolute travesty and tragedy.
But, if she is indeed insane and did this, it shows that there is a problem in our society that does not see the danger BEFORE it means 5 children must die. Same as we do not see the danger of sexual child molesters and willfully allow them to snatch our children for their sexual gratification - which includes the murder of those children
That husband lived with the woman, those relatives saw her with the children. You do not leave children with an insane person. Apparently, he too is mentally defective to ignore the dangers in his quest for his view of family life with no regard for the wishes of the wife.
I put a great deal of blame on him as I feel he is one of those weird people that push their needs and desires above all else. We have all seen families ruled by the views of a husband who chooses to ignore the needs of the family.
So, if mentally ill, there is nothing going on but a powder keg being stoked. She apparently had no ability to handle the demands being placed on her and a husband that chose to ignore her or provide solutions.
I don't know the makeup of this jury but in my opinion they most likely blew the decision. True the prosecutor didn't asked for the death penality but the insanity plea is a very hard one to succeed with in Texas.
To deliberate for three days indicates to me that the jury most likely was hung at first and the insanity group finally convinced some of the others to change to the insanity verdict. We'll know more as they begin to talk.
IMO, if Andrea Yates is going to be judged "not guilty" due to a severe mental illness, then someone else has to be held to account for these five murdered souls.
If Yates' form of insanity was "rare and severe", her husband and family were aware of it and the threat it posed to the children.
The father of these children (and the other caretakers) need to be punished for not protecting these children.
So moms go around routinely killing their kids in this recently-discovered disease? What is the technical name for a stressed dad killing his kids? Can we come up with a disorder for jealous husbands, angry laid off workers, people cut off in traffic? Hell, everyone who murders has some sort of screw loose. Doesn't make them NOT GUILTY.
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.