Drowning Kids is OK (Yates' murder conviction overturned)

[RUgreek]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/06/children.drowned/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(CNN) -- A Texas appeals court in Houston Thursday reversed the capital murder convictions of Andrea Yates, the woman who drowned her five children in a bathtub, citing the false testimony of a prosecution witness.

According to a report from The Associated Press, Yates' lawyers argued last month before a three-judge panel of the First Court of Appeals in Houston that psychiatrist Park Dietz was wrong when he said he consulted on an episode of the TV show "Law and Order" involving a woman found innocent by reason of insanity for drowning her children.

After Yates was convicted, attorneys in the case and jurors learned no such episode existed, the AP reported.

Jurors in 2002 sentenced Yates to life in prison in the 2001 deaths of three of her children. She was not tried in the deaths of the other two.

Yates told authorities that Satan told her to kill the children. Despite a documented history of mental illness, a jury rejected her plea of innocent by reason of insanity and convicted her of murder in 2002. She was sentenced to life in prison but will be eligible for parole in 40 years.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope they give her the death penalty when they try her again.


RUgreek

[Phasad1913]

Hold on now, they are not saying that Yates has now been acquitted of the murder charges. The case has been remanded back to the trial court for a new trial. She will be re-tried WITHOUT the faulty testimony of the expert witness. All this means is that the prosecution will have to use other forms of testimony and proof.

[AlphaSigOU]

However, the prosecution can no longer seek the death penalty. Texas law.

Chances are, they will retry her and reaffirm the life sentence she already received.

[KillarneyRose]

Originally posted by AlphaSigOU
However, the prosecution can no longer seek the death penalty. Texas law.

Chances are, they will retry her and reaffirm the life sentence she already received.

I believe that (even though this woman is crazy as a jaybird) her having to live the rest of her life carrying around the hell that must rage in her head is a just punishment. Plus, in lucid moments she realizes what she did to her own children. As a mom, I don't think I can imagine too many things as horrifying as that.

And for the record, I am very much pro-death penalty.

[Peaches-n-Cream]

I have always felt bad for her. She didn't get the medical and psychiatric help that she desperately needed. No mother in her right mind murders all of her children. I am not saying that she shouldn't be punished, but I don't think that the death penalty is warranted here. I really think that she should be studied in order to learn how to prevent this from happening again.


Also, I agree with KillarneyRose except for the pro-death penalty part. I have mixed feelings so I am undecided about the death penalty.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally posted by RUgreek


According to a report from The Associated Press, Yates' lawyers argued last month before a three-judge panel of the First Court of Appeals in Houston that psychiatrist Park Dietz was wrong when he said he consulted on an episode of the TV show "Law and Order" involving a woman found innocent by reason of insanity for drowning her children.

After Yates was convicted, attorneys in the case and jurors learned no such episode existed, the AP reported.

That's what you get for using a TV show in your case...
(Although I thought I remembered an episode where a woman drowned her children...)

There's a special circle in Hell reserved for people like her.

[lifesaver]

Its called the law, jackass.

Texas appeals courts didnt issue shit saying that it was ok to drown kids. They did say that if on appeal, you can prove that the prosecutions key witness TESTALIED, and BS'd on the stand then you probably deserve a new trial.

You'd be hella up in arms if you were on trial for something and someone lied like that. We all would be.

But thanks for the inflamatory speech Nancy Grace.

[moe.ron]

Take a step back, deep breath, and relax. Let us keep this discussion civil people.

[krazy]

Originally posted by lifesaver
Its called the law, jackass.

Texas appeals courts didnt issue shit saying that it was ok to drown kids. They did say that if on appeal, you can prove that the prosecutions key witness TESTALIED, and BS'd on the stand then you probably deserve a new trial.

You'd be hella up in arms if you were on trial for something and someone lied like that. We all would be.

But thanks for the inflamatory speech Nancy Grace.

This just shows haw crappy her lawyers must have been, to not catch this during the trial. IMO, there is no harm in re-trying, but we have to have some kind of finality in our judicial system, you cannot bring everything back to court over false statements. It is up to the defense to catch those during the trial. Her lawyers dropped the ball, big time.

There are some lawyers on here... Rudey, aren't you a lawyer? I know there are more. Shouldn't they have caught this during the trial? What is the deal here?

[33girl]

This just shows how dumb it is to underestimate people's Law and Order dedication. There are people who know every plotline and every episode by heart and will call you on it if you screw up. If you don't believe me, visit Television Without Pity.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by carol9a
I'm not saying she's not entitled to a trial, I'm saying that its remarkable that it works that way since we know how its going to turn out anyway.

This is a stunning comment - re-read this. Think about it for a minute.









nah, a little more . . .













OK. So hopefully by now you realize that the entire point of the US Court system (which is probably the most elegant system in the history of mankind, seriously) is designed specifically to try to avoid 'knowing the outcome' of a trial. What you've just claimed is insane - not to mention dangerous, particularly to the groups traditionally over-represented with regard to crime and jailing. That's why this woman was given a new trial - because a serious mistake was made in the first trial, she is entitled to a new one, because every American citizen is guaranteed a fair trial.

Even ones that kill their children.

Hopefully you never need to rely on that guarantee, but if you do, you'll be quite glad it's there.

[KSigkid]

While I cannot even begin to understand what she did...she has to have the new trial. A key witness lied, and that's that; in the interests of fairness and the judicial process, they have to give her a new trial.

[damasa]

Originally posted by krazy
This just shows haw crappy her lawyers must have been, to not catch this during the trial. IMO, there is no harm in re-trying, but we have to have some kind of finality in our judicial system, you cannot bring everything back to court over false statements. It is up to the defense to catch those during the trial. Her lawyers dropped the ball, big time.

There are some lawyers on here... Rudey, aren't you a lawyer? I know there are more. Shouldn't they have caught this during the trial? What is the deal here?

No, no and no.

Her "lawyers dropping the ball" means nothing here.

"Bringing everything back" without any kind of "finality" is part of the U.S. Court System. If we had the kind of "finality" that you speak of, we'd be convicting the wrong people left and right.

And actually, under U.S. law, it's possible to bring things back to court for a new trial under such things as "false statements."

[Rudey]

Originally posted by krazy
Rudey, aren't you a lawyer?

Nope. I think Bruinaphi, a DU from Texas, and perhaps one or two more people on here who practice law so they might know your answer.

-Rudey