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
Nothing wrong? How about not protecting his children from a mother with mental problems? How about making that mother do home schooling knowing full well that she had problems?
You don't put an unstable mother in a situation of constant interaction with five children without relief when you have been advised that she should have no more children.
Easy to say he did nothing wrong - you are right - he did nothing and the children died. He was the only hope they had in that situation. He chose not to see his wife's building problems, went off to work involved in his life, while the children were left with a crazy woman for their total care.
Smart - real, real smart. Yep, hey! What is he supposed to do, he works, brings in the bacon - the kids are her responsibility. Yet, he chose to keep having those kids but not to protect them from an unstable mother.
You do not expect that an unstable, totally depressed woman can surmount all problems and handle them as well as a healthy person. You are being a fool if you do.
Glad you kept God with you as you went through all of this and may your family be restored.
So very hard to understand post-partum depression.
§ 8.01. INSANITY. (a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that, at the time of the conduct charged, the actor, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, did not know that his conduct was wrong.
My mistake. I thought you were speaking of hydrophobia...not sociopaths.
I invite you to read my subsequent posts.
At any rate, Ms. Yates' actions (in my opinion and in the opinion of the previous jury) do not render her insane according to Texas law. According to Texas law, she knew her actions were wrong considering that she phoned her husband afterward telling him "I've done a very bad thing".
Sorry meant to say:
Disgusting verdict FOR a most disgusting evil, vile person!
No, I don't want to bet but I think a judge will think very carefully before letting out a woman that murdered 5 of her kids. If I'm wrong, feel free to come back with an I told you so though.
...the case is not closed....I am not a psychologist but I have a Masters Degree in Psych....and I can tell you that in severe cases, you can know what you did was wrong but so psychotic that you are compelled to do the act...at the time knowing you are doing the right thing...and at the same time, knowing was wrong.....hard to explain but unless you have studied or been around mental illness, I can tell you it is a tough nut.....I don't want to make excuses for anyone, but you are thinking of this in a rational mind, where those that are truly sick...do not have that luxury....so ....the case is closed....but not in what you elaborated on.....
Were Dahmer, Manson, et al, the serial killers sane? How could Susan Smith murder her precious boys? They were all clearly a combination of insanity and evil. Society put them where they belonged.
Because Andrea was the "Mother" we can't bring ourselves to judge her "evil"? We blame it on post-partum depression or meds.
Has she ever shown remorse? A truly remorseful, loving Mother who came to her senses, wouldn't want to go on living knowing what she had done..NOT Andrea...
I'm afraid the jury has been duped.
sw
It would be "unfortunate" if one of the kids broke their arm. Being drown with your four siblings is somewhat worse IMO.
The most just solution would be lethal injection for Yates, and a public square stoning for her deadbeat worthless husband.
Another mother who is has gotten off after murdering her children.
She killed those children out of hate for her husband.
There's (she claimed) a drop of about a factor of 1000 in the hormones in one day after birth; big shock to the body.
Exactly!
She killed those children because she wanted to strike out at her husband.
Just goes to prove: if you kill a whole bunch of people the jury will say you were insane, while if you kill only one, you get a death sentence. You might as well go for broke and kill them all - you will get away with it!
What if she was possessed?
I believe she can be set free after a spell in the hospital. I have to say that I blame the husband somewhat for not realizing how dangerous she was.
So God won't forgive murder?
You're correct. I am a psychologist (though I don't do clinical work) and I'm generally pretty tough on criminals. I've read what's out there on her condition and I'm convinced that she was extremely mentally ill at the time. She had postpartum psychosis - which is different than postpartum depression. Years ago Charles Krauthaumer (not sure I'm spelling his name right) had an excellent editorial explaining why he thought Andrea Yates should be found not guilty by reason of insanity (this might have been during the first trial). He did a great job explaining what, as you say, is hard to explain. The best analogy I can come up with is breaking the speed limit to get a sick person to the hospital. You know that you are doing something wrong and breaking the law, but you are doing it to save a life, so it is the "right thing" to do.
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.