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
...doesn't sound like it...but a jailhouse snitch is not one I'd put much faith in....usually
Yes, but we have "certified experts" in this forum, who can dispute it and create her victimhood using their credentials (they don't need to hear her, or what she said to her cellmate about planning)
Oh, I see....one jailhouse snitch to another jailhouse snitch doesn't count?
I hope she visits them one day. As long as she is "mentally sick," killing means just an "unfortunate accident." I'm tired of the BS.
I do not think killing an innocent grandmother is a proper comparison of fruit with a woman who murdered all her children. All liberal hearts bleed for those with blood on their hands lest they be held to account and executed but won't lift a finger to save the lives of the truly innocent.
and yes, we should get rid of all judges and attorneys' who are egregious....who judges that?
not other lawyers and judges
don't worry, she's not "sick" enough to cause any harm to her lawyers and her shrinks. she'd be crazy to do that.
....it may count....but probably not in court....
You're probably right.
Our system of justice is based on guilty beyond reasonable doubt and the fact the person has to understand their crime at the time it occurred. You mentioned having clinical depression and you would never do this? Never say never especially if you are under the care of what todays Psychiatrist are. There is no couch. It's 15 minutes every three months, here have some pills, and have a nice day. NEXT!!! Oh the Pharmaceutical Sales Rep is here practices.
I've witnessed something before in here that likely only one or possibly two Freepers have seen. The rest of you likely never heard of the term Serotonin Syndrome. It can happen from taking antidepressants.
This isn't BS pyscho-babble it's scientific fact that very few of the shrinks who pass out pills and say come back in three months even acknowledge exist.
Research my name with post on antidepressants. When I first signed up in here I was a staunch defender of their usage. Freepers Joe Montana, Metalbird, Al B. and a few others like Rubbertramp will tell you I did this. Thanks to them making me think a life was probably saved possibly two including my own.
I have seen someone in a chemically induced Serotonin Migration. She was lucky in that she could not harm herself nor others but that was because of quadriplegia. The onset can come in minutes. What they see and what they think during this time is their reality. Many doctors mistake this very potentially dangerous or even fatal adverse reaction as mere psychosis never mind the fact they are the ones who gave the meds causing it. So what do the shrinks do? Protocol says Benzo's STAT to counter act it. But they don't see it and instead up the dosage of the offending medication.
The mental health profession namely the psychiatrist have a lot of cleaning up to do in their profession. I would go more on the testimony of a credible Psychologist or a LCSW than I would a shrink. They and not the pyschiatrist actually know the persons mental state and can make better assesments usually. In her case just IMO there is reasonable doubt. I would hold the shrinks testimony. Some have more issues than their patients. No not all are bad but all it takes is one bad shrink to send someone over the edge.
What I'm saying is I can understand how it could happen. She very well could have thought she heard satan. I know someone who says she saw him. She also thought she was Tess on Touched By an Angel. six doctors including shrinks missed Serotonin Syndrome. They scoffed until I showed them the report written by their teaching hospitals Pharmacology Professor.
Reasonable Doubt? It would be a hard one for me. But I think shrinks spend more time doing CYA than actually getting to know and treat their patients as they actually should.
Alas, the irony!
...well my heart does not bleed for her at all....I'm sympathetic to her misery.....and I'm hardly liberal but I as I mentioned before...because I have graduate training in that area...I see it differently....does not mean I'm right or more enlightened.....just have studied it more...and there are people.....very rare...that are that bad...in fact, Hitler who was....well a sociopath...was not nearly as psychotic as Andrea Yates.....he could not have functioned.....and yes....I agree....not judges or lawyers deciding who should stay or go
Yes, because I think a not guilty verdict ... even by insanity ... brings double jeopardy into play and precludes reconsideration of the case even if new evidence arises. So whether she's crazy or not ... and if some hard evidence comes out that she isn't, I'll certainly reassess my earlier posts on this ... there is nothing else that can be done to her, it's over. So after we get the hollering and fussing out of our systems, the wise thing to do might be to move forward and try to change some laws.
...by the way...I don't have to hear here....I can hear what the prevailing doctors say...study the patterns of behavior....(am I one of the "certified" experts?.)..lol. and have stressed it is my opinion that from all I've read or heard....she was severly mentally psychotic... and I think you have overweighted this cell house planning thing...either that..or no one else on TV or print has mentioned it.....and you are a wizard
It would be an act of compassion to execute her.
...my dear....severe clinical depression is not similar to severe Post Partum Psychosis.....different animals.....
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.