Posted on 03/14/2002 2:49:18 PM PST by MeekOneGOP
March 14, 2002, 5:05PM
Associated Press
Russell Yates enters the Harris County Courthouse today
for the sentencing phase of the capital murder trial of
his wife Andrea Pia Yates. Andrea Yates was found guilty
Tuesday in the June, 2001, drowning deaths of three of
their five children and faces either life in prison or
the death penalty.
By CAROL CHRISTIAN
Copyright 2002 Houston Chronicle
An undisclosed witness is expected to be the last to testify Friday before jurors begin deliberating the fate of convicted capital murderer Andrea Pia Yates.
The panel of eight women and four men on Tuesday convicted Yates of capital murder in the drowning deaths of three of her children. They must now decide whether to sentence her to life in prison or death.
Jutta Karin Kennedy, Yates' 73-year-old mother, wept on the witness stand this morning as she asked the jury for mercy.
"I'm here pleading for her life," Kennedy said. She told jurors that her daughter was a loving mother and compassionate nurse who suffered with her patients.
The punishment phase of the trial began this morning with a 10-minute statement from defense lawyer George Parnham. The prosecution made no opening statement, presented no witnesses of its own and asked virtually no questions of the 11 witnesses called by the defense.
"Andrea has been helping people all her life," Yates' mother testified. "The two times she really needed help, it wasn't given long enough for her to really get better."
Kennedy apparently referred to her daughter's history of mental illness, which included four hospitalizations and two suicide attempts.
Kennedy started to make a comment about her daughter's reaction to the verdict but was cut off by an objection from prosecutor Joe Owmby, which was sustained by the judge.
Outside the courtroom, another family member said Kennedy had wanted to say that following the verdict Tuesday, Yates called the family and apologized for the trouble she had caused.
Russell Yates, the defendant's husband, smiled at his wife as he took the stand. During his four-minute testimony, he said of Yates, "She's the kindest and most caring person I know."
Blinking back tears, he said she gave the children Band-Aids for injuries so minor they were undetectable.
The Clear Lake homemaker was convicted Tuesday afternoon, following a surprisingly short 3 1/2 hours of jury deliberation.
Jurors found her guilty of drowning Noah, 7, John, 5, and Mary, 6 months. She also confessed to drowning their brothers Paul, 3, and Luke, 2.
Witnesses this morning all described Yates, 37, as a dedicated, loving mother who had never committed acts of violence prior to drowning her five children in the bathtub June 20. Psychiatrists testified during the trial that Yates was mentally ill at the time of the murders and drowned her children because she thought they were doomed to burn in hell.
Her mother-in-law, Dora Yates, described Yates as the most compassionate person she had ever met.
"If she meets anyone, she tries to be their caretaker immediately," she said. "Of course I separate what happened to the children. To me, that wasn't her. The children loved her. We all love her."
Molly Maguire-Stefano, who said she met Yates as a teen-ager working at a grocery store in Pasadena, described the defendant as an "awesome mother."
For example, Yates used cloth diapers and helped the children make Christmas ornaments, her friend said.
"They could do more crafts than I could do as an adult because she worked with them," Maguire-Stefano said.
Several witnesses testified that, before drowning her children, Yates had never broken the law aside from getting one speeding ticket.
In determining the sentence, jurors are not asked to state directly, "She should spend her life in prison," or "She should die by lethal injection."
Rather, they are asked to render an opinion on two issues. For Yates to get a death sentence, the jury must agree unanimously on both questions.
The first issue is "future dangerousness" -- whether it's likely the defendant would commit future violent crimes that would constitute a continuing threat to society.
Dr. Lucy Puryear, a Houston psychiatrist who interviewed Yates in the Harris County Jail, testified that Yates is not a future threat because her mental illness was triggered by childbirth. According to other testimony, she is unlikely to give birth in prison.
"I've seen lots of people with mental illness and lots of people with anti-social, criminal backgrounds," said Puryear, former director of the Baylor Psychiatry Clinic at Baylor College of Medicine.
"Mrs. Yates is a woman who has severe mental illness and does not have the personality of someone who commits crimes, except as a result of the illness."
Puryear said that working on Yates' case for eight months had been emotionally draining.
"I spend a large part of my time trying to prevent what happened," said Puryear, who specializes in women's psychiatric problems related to childbirth. "As a mother of four, I find it almost unimaginable to think about what happened."
One juror wiped away tears as Puryear testified.
If at least 10 of the 12 jurors say Yates does not pose a future danger, she is automatically sentenced to life in prison, according to Texas law.
If all jurors say Yates is likely to commit future violent crimes, then they move on to the second issue, "mitigating circumstances."
On this issue, jurors are asked to consider all the evidence -- including the circumstances of the offense, the defendant's character and background as well as the defendant's personal moral culpability -- and then decide if there is anything that reduces the defendant's "moral blameworthiness."
Under Texas criminal procedures, the jurors need not agree on which piece of evidence constitutes a mitigating circumstance.
If jurors agree unanimously that there is no evidence to warrant sparing her life, she is sentenced to death.
If, however, 10 or more agree that there is at least one mitigating circumstance, she is sentenced to life in prison. In that case, she would become eligible for parole after serving 40 years.
At that time, Yates would be 77 years old.
HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Local & State
This article is: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/topstory2/1295953
Maybe reality is setting in on him ----I would find it very strange if he was able to anywhere near this creepy horrible woman.
If at least 10 of the 12 jurors say Yates does not pose a future danger, she is automatically sentenced to life in prison, according to Texas law.
What's with the 10 or more this reporter is trying to explain......
If, however, 10 or more agree that there is at least one mitigating circumstance, she is sentenced to life in prison. In that case, she would become eligible for parole after serving 40 years.What's with the 10 or more this reporter is trying to explain......If at least 10 of the 12 jurors say Yates does not pose a future danger, she is automatically sentenced to life in prison, according to Texas law.
The in's and out's of the punishment was confusing to me. Sounds like they are saying that if the jurors determine there were circumstances they could find that drove Andrea to kill the kids, they can give her life in prison and she'll be 77 years old when she gets out. Takes 10 of 12 instead of unanimous.
They definitely could have done a better job laying it, I think.
Hey, Rusty! Let me introduce you to my good friend! Rusty, meet Lorena Bobbit! Lorena, THIS is Rusty!
:O)
There must be a unanimous finding of guilt on the charge of capital murder before moving on to the punishment phase, at which time the jury is asked two questions:
1. Do you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the person you have just convicted of capital murder represents a continuing threat to society?
2. Do you believe there are any mitigating factors that would warrant the individual spending his or her life in prison, rather than being put to death?
Again, the vote must be unanimous. The jury must vote "yes" on the first question and "no" on the second. If there is not a unanimous vote on the first question, then the second is not even considered.
So I have no idea what the 10 of 12 is for. But the court will work it out regardless of what we and the reporter think.
I hope her mother's pleas for mercy go just as unheeded as those put forth by those beautiful innocent Yates children as their mother systematically murdered them.
Yep. Whatever the law is regarding the punishment phase, I'm sure the judge will abide by that, explain it to the jury and tell 'em, "get with it! You're burnin' daylight!" Good judges don't like to screw it up and risk expensive re-trials and their reputations.
Almost without exception, death row inmates are provided with experienced court-appointed counsel at all phases of appeals in state and federal court.Indigent death row inmates have two attorneys —- one to handle the state direct appeal and the other to handle the state habeas appeal. Neither of these attorneys is the same one who represented the inmate at trial. The inmate is also represented by court-appointed counsel in Federal court.
To suggest that capital punishment is administered harshly in Texas is just wrong.
When you think about Daniel Joe Hittle, a convicted capital murderer who was executed by the state of Texas, I would ask you to also think about his victim, Garland Police Officer Gerald Walker.
Officer Walker was executed by Hittle, but he didn’t have the due process to plead for his life that the State of Texas afforded his murderer.
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.