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
I once read a book - "This Stranger My Son" in which a mother was raising a child with severe mental problems. As he grew older, he got violent against her and the family. She could find no options for help for extended time - especially when he reached 18. All his life she was faced with his illness causing him to be denied access to schools but with no options for handling him.
So very sad and very revealing about the inefficiencies of our mental health agencies.
Sometimes the ill one just has no place for help.
I agree - that man and his mother were the children's only hope if she was truly insane.
He should not be free of any responsibility.
I'm ready to move on to the medical malpractice lawsuits now. Where are those doctors that supposedly treated her?
May this woman rot in hell.
She did not have follow up plans for the severity of her illness. As I understood it the doctor felt she needed inpatient confinement. Further, the question will be asked of him how often he visits such a seriously ill person.
That's a travesty of justice.
YATES: I think that's a very good question. (snip....) "Andrea, the two medications she was on at the time of the tragedy are both on that list, Rimaron (ph) and Effexor, and in fact they're given in combination together, they have an even stronger effect than separately. So I definitely think the medication played a part, someone asked me once, why June 20, why did it happen on that day? Her medications were adjusted two days before. So I definitely believe that was a factor."
sw
I'm not dispelling the fact she killed her children. What I said is his actions are strange. The way he said he'd give her a hug and tell her congratulations, while never showing any emotions for the loss of their children. I can't help but think it is strange behavior.
I won't hijack this thread. Repeat, I won't hijack this thread.
HA! Nice. :)
Also, the Archbishop of my Archdiocese (Galveston Houston) has come out strongly against the death penalty. Another reason I oppose it.
CALLER: How're you doing? My question to Rusty is this. Prior to the killings of his children, did he ever try to get any help or treatment for his wife for any other illnesses?
YATES: Any other illnesses? No. Mental illness, yes. I mean, we -- you know, she -- we sought medical treatment for her in 1999. She was successfully treated at that time. And then again in 2001, when she became ill, we sought medical treatment for her. She was hospitalized twice in '99, twice again in 2001. We were in the psychiatrist's office two nights before the tragedy.
KING: Was she labeled what, schizophrenic? No?
YATES: They told me she had post-partum depression. That's what they told me, so...
I don't know, Shrink..??? Go figure..
sw
If people had the slightest clue to just how inadequate many state and local mental health services are, they would be outraged.
Six months before AY killed her children, I was dealing with severe PPD, but I wasn't pychotic. I can't and don't want to explain what I was going through but I was so tormented that I drove to the police station to turn myself in even though I hadn't committed any crime.
I was driven to a local hospital and dumped among the drunks and crack addicts (after they removed my shoe strings). A doctor came in, asked a few questions and told me that my problem was a lack of communication. Less than 12 hours later, I was released from the hospital on my own. My family was never contacted...I was literally dumped on the streets.
My story has a happy ending, though. I got appropriate medical help once MY husband came downtown and picked me up in the hospital lobby.
I told that doctor (and the police) that I was afraid I would kill myself and hurt my children. They were so concerned...they locked me in a room with drunks and released me a few hours later.
That, my friends, is quality "state run" mental healthy care in this country!
Because he shared a responsibility to protect his children, and he failed miserably.
I know what you're saying. But remember that "erring on the side of caution" could also result in the loss of innocent life, if the incarcerated person kills a prison guard, for example.
I don't believe that is true. A new trial is a trial de-novo. The findings of the last jury are irrelevant. It is as if there has been no previous trial. Her guilt was back on the table. Therefore if the latter jury had found her guilty, they would be free to impose whatever penalty that the prosecution had asked for.
Jude, you are still studying this stuff. Correct me if I'm wrong. But I do believe the prosecution could have requested the death penalty, they just didn't think they'd get it. They would have if I were on the jury.
"I despise that guy. I think he's pretty well responsible for everything. He'll get the justice in the long run, not helpless Andrea."
You are sick. As far as I can tell, he didn't drown any of the kids, and as far as I know, he didn't rape Andrea. They both made a decision to have sex, knowing full well what the consequences would be.
I find it so despicable that the spirit of feminism is so entrenched that even when the man did nothing wrong, he is still guilty. Sick.
Obviously there are conflicting reports............
I'd like to see a new category "Guilty, but dangerously insane" with a mandatory death penalty just the same.
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.