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
The Bible says one of the signs of the end times is a lack of natural affection. I think killing one's child falls in that category.
Good. I've followed this tragic story right from the beginning and believe this was the right decision for her.
Randy "I'd rather just take another question"
I'll bet you would.
Did she get a lighter punishment? Locked up in seclusion in prison or placed in an institute for the mentally insane. Which is worse? I can't see her being released for a long time, if ever.
"I suffered, tremendously, after the birth of my first son"
Sorry to hear that, seriously.
The difference is you didn't butcher you child. You were able to maintain. Anyone who cannot cope, should never be free to roam again. EVER. You can either hate them for what they did, or make excuses for it. But you cannot disagree with the fact that if they did it once due to circumstances, they could possible do it again. Allowing her to ever be free again would be nothing short of negligence on the part of the law.
His taking her to mental health doctors and counseling was ignoring it?
I know a man who has been a faithful, giving, and loving husband for 40 years of marriage, to a wife who struggled for most of those years with varying levels of mental issues and extended mental health counseling and treatments. Over the years he caught hell from some relatives and her friends for either going too far or not doing enough. And the wife was VERY good at playing the manipulation, pity, and gossip games. Sometimes there just isn't a perfect answer or approach, with a severe downside to any decision.
Am not at all directing this next sentence at you, but on these threads I've seen a lot of the same gullible and/or malicious gossipy jumping to false conclusions and slander that I saw in some of her circle. And it makes my blood boil.
We hate the harm being done to all these children but can you imagine what God thinks of it?
It makes our blood boil, but, we will just drift back into our lives, people will continue ignoring signs of danger because they do not have options for mentally defective people until the murder is done - then the state will take action.
Ol' Rusty was too much of a man to admit that his wife was crazy. He ignored the doctors claims that she should not have more children, Why? Then when his five children died, he is in total support of that wife? What about the children? Something is really wrong here. It is not natural for a husband to support a wife that killed five of his children. So, was he hoping to have his child-maker back so that he could show how much of a man he was?
Notice, that he has remarried. Was not going to be denied a child-maker while that wife was in prison.
The man is crazy and those children were dependent on him. He ignored the needs and abilities of his wife making her do home teaching and all care of five children. Why? Because that was his desire and view of the perfect family.
I would think anyone losing five children would never be sane again - but, not Ol' Rusty. He managed to find another wife. Seems those children were not very treasured or loved by him - other than as a display of his manhood.
Sick men and women there.
If you're left here at that time I will be the least of your worries.
Actually Leilani says that Andrea's unfortunate children received justice in this decision.
Hahaha, I heard him say that too.
Oh yeah? Are you sure about that? Who would have thought Hinckley would be walking the streets these days, I bet she'll be out within a decade. Some justice....
Her psycho Medications had been adjusted a couple of days before she drowned her five children.
sw
I think its all because there are 300 million people just waiting to pounce when someone DOES take a stand against what is wrong. But, we must always remember that PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT, as our moms always told us. Our moms really did know what was best...
Oh my. What a freakshow this guy is. You would think someone would have taken him aside at some point and said, "Hey Rusty, maybe you should just speak through your attorney."
Yeah, when you are nuts to the point where Ozzy doesn't want to be around you, that's pretty bad....
The very basis of criminal law grew out of secular and church attitudes towards crime. To be punished you must be able to understand what you have done and that what you have done was perceived as wrong at the time of the event.
In this way the integrity of the law is preserved. Only those who are capable of forming both intent and the action are considered criminals.
I agree this is a tough area for the law and the courts. This is why a successful jury trial deciding "not guilty by reason of insanity" is very rare. Usually, prosecutors and defense counsel both see the "craziness" of the perpetrator and a plea bargain is agreed upon for the "insanity defense." Such decisions are much more common than a contested jury trial for the same issue.
Texas is not noted for being soft on crime. No one in Minnesota has accused Texans as being too soft, compassionate and lenient towards criminals.
The errors in this case were inadequate defense and attempts to understand the issue before the first trial. Most likely, the jury thought a lot about this in reaching the verdict they did.
That post 226 is so full of lies and blamemaking it should be pulled. Literally everyone but Geroge W got the blame for the child murderers. 'Cept the mom of course.
The drug she was on pushed her into killing her children. I wish Rusty Yates would sue the big pharma company. These drugs are awful...lots of out of court settlements conditioned that NO one talks about these drugs making folks killers.
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.