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
Keeping this pinged, check out Mona Charen's column ... and she's no radical liberal feminist or child-hater ... that will be released today (Friday 7/28), she really takes out after Rusty Yates.
As far as the "guilty, but not culpable by reason of insanity" finding, again I absolutely would support that and would participate in an effort to codify that into law. Where I would disagree with some who've posted in this thread is that I don't know if I'd go as far as saying that somebody found "guilty but insane" should be executed, even though I generally support the death penalty for the most heinous crimes.
Book deals? Movie deals? SHE'S NUCKING FUTS! Good holy Christmas, do you think this woman is capable of negotiating a deal, much less coherently providing material for such deals?
A poster here mentioned something about the immediate phone calls after the murders. One was to Rusty Yates, where Andrea said that "she did it". He knew she killed someone, but obviously not herself. Didn't even freak out. He knew she she shouldn't have been anywhere near those babies. Like to comment on that?
Men and women process mental illness differently, and act out in decidedly different ways. It's still a valid defense when one is ate up and totally loony tunes.
Hohohohoho! He remarried!!! Yes, he found someone stupid and brain dead enough to let that guy into her life. Okay, not really that funny.
Read up on the backround on Andrea and Rusty's religious beliefs. It will give you a most definitive clue. I'm tired of listening to otherwise intelligent, conservative posters calling for needles, ropes, and full bathtubs. Just don't let the woman out in this lifetime.
Bwahahahaha!!!!! You forgot the /sarc tag, right? Please tell me you did.
Hokay.
I was raised conservative CoC and am now a Gnostic with a side of Theravada.
(I follow the Dharma for the results -detachment from matter. I don't accept reincarnation, etc. )
Ozzy Osbourne on Russell Yates: “I will burn his eyes out with a hot poker.”
The husband of Andrea Yates, Russell, was on the Today Show the same morning that Ozzy Osbourne was, and told a journalist that he was a huge fan of Ozzy’s. Upon hearing this, Page Six reports, Ozzy said, “I will burn his eyes out with a hot poker … He is profiting directly from the demise of his own children. And that, to me, is wrong.” The Osbournes snuck out a back door to avoid Russell, who wanted his picture taken with Ozzy. http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/the_osbournes/2002_Mar_28_ozzy_osbourne_on
Now remember, we are NOT talking about Susan Smith.
There is a history of depression and schizophrenia on Andrea's side of the family. That has nothing to do with intelligence, imo.
Her religion states that birth control is a sin. Also, the man being the head of the household. Now, couple that with a charlatan who proclaims himself to be a man of God. Boy, I'd love to get my hands on his sermons. So, put it all together and you have a real problem on your hands. Rusty wants to knock boots, you must submit.
She had no more of a choice of voicing her opinion of curtailing future pregnancies or homeschooling, than she had picking out an ice cream flavor. By kid #3(I think), she was toast. How could she make a rational decision at that point?
I understand completely what you're saying, but it simply doesn't apply to Andrea Yates. Since Rusty was head of the household according to their religious beliefs, it was his job to watch over his flock. His arrogance, self centeredness, and disregard for the reality of his wife's condition, directly played a part in this horrible tragedy. Imagine how callous a man would have to be to deliberately impregnate a ragdoll. Yuck :(
One more thing. I've mentioned this on a previous thread. Why not take this woman and study her? Glean as much information as possible regarding underlying mental illnesses and postpartum psychosis? Examine extremely harsh religious beliefs(oh, that will be really popular)added to the mix. Don't let those babies die in vain.
Excuse me? I'm trying to throw freedom of religion out the window? I am concerned with cults, not religion. Equating that cult with Protestant worship is a slap in the face to every person who is a Protestant.
You should do some research before you make claims that I am gunning for Catholicism....because I was raised pre-Vatican II Catholic. Birth control is considered a mortal sin. Of course if you subscribe to the "anything goes" mentality of Vatican II, then of course you'd think differently. The Church made certain allowances even back in the dark ages for certain circumstances where birth control could be used. Andrea, if I am not mistaken, left Catholicism, to join her husband's church.
Which brings us to your last comments. "If Andrea Yates was so insane she could not have children. Then she was to insane to consent to sex." That is the point that some of us have been trying to make! Then there's, "I will not hold my breathe waiting for liberals to tell people to stop taking sexual advantage of crazy people.". Liberals? Since when do they care about anyone but their agenda? They don't care about crazy people, women, anyone but themselves.
Hope this clears a few things up for you. Have a great day!
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.