Yates Conviction Overturned

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

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

Yates' murder conviction overturned
Texas court reverses 2003 ruling of woman who drowned her kids


(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. (Blaze's Insert: WTF!)

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.

[MannyIsGod]

dude, what the hell?

[Spurminator]

Wouldn't it be amusing if he meant "The Practice" or something?

Of course, nothing is as amusing as a TV show being referenced in a Capital Murder trial.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Of course, nothing is as amusing as a TV show being referenced in a Capital Murder trial.

See, in this episode of "Family Guy"...

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Seriously, let's not forget the real victims in this case.

http://images.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/01/drownings/yateskids/noah.jpg
Noah

http://images.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/01/drownings/yateskids/john.jpg
John

http://images.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/01/drownings/yateskids/paul.jpg
Paul

http://images.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/01/drownings/yateskids/luke.jpg
Luke

http://images.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/01/drownings/yateskids/mary.jpg
Mary

[Kori Ellis]

Oh my gosh.

Someone needs to drown Andrea Yates.

[Shelly]

Jesus.

I hope her tubes are tied.

[AlamoSpursFan]

And then run over her corpse with an 18 wheeler. I volunteer.

[SpursWoman]

WTF? :wtf

[Useruser666]

So what the hell kind of a disclaimer will Law and Order use now?

"Real events may or may not have taken place based on this episode."

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

So what the hell kind of a disclaimer will Law and Order use now?

"Real events may or may not have taken place based on this episode."

They already do. Sorta.

[Useruser666]

Check my wording out Blaze. Damn I hate explaining jokes! :p

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Check my wording out Blaze. Damn I hate explaining jokes! :p

Fuck. You can smack me upside the head at the next GTG.

I'm a little zoned out because I have to wait until 2P to add new classes.

[AlamoSpursFan]

[Thread hijack]I love the disclaimer at the bottom of that Howie Long Chevy commercial. "Professional drivers on a closed course". No shit. You mean I can't drive my Silverado around in a football stadium? DAMN![/Thread hijack]

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

[Thread hijack]I love the disclaimer at the bottom of that Howie Long Chevy commercial. "Professional drivers on a closed course". No shit. You mean I can't drive my Silverado around in a football stadium? DAMN![/Thread hijack]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/06/news/funny/warning_labels/index.htm?cnn=yes

[FromWayDowntown]

The court of appeals did what it was supposed to do, even if you don't like the result, because it is there to make sure that the trial is fair to both the State and the defendant. The rules permit a reversal only where there is an error that affects the substantial rights of the defendant, and only where the error may have lead to an improper result.

I don't really understand the reasoning for finding that this error may have lead to an improper result, but then again, I didn't sit through trial and I haven't read the record, so I don't know what testimony and evidence was before the jury. My suspicion would be that the evidence might have supported guilty by reason of insanity, but the Court believed that this guy's opinion may have swayed the jury to reject insanity in favor of a straight-on guilty verdict. I'm skeptical about the merit of her insanity plea, but there must be some pretty good evidence to support it -- otherwise, there would have been no reversible error in this appeal. Since there was some evidence to support a finding of guilty by reason of insanity, though, she's entitled to a new trial according to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Ultimately, she's only going to get a new trial and will again be convicted -- and likely on the same finding of straight-on guilt. But the new trial will ensure that the result is fairly-gotten and not the result of a lying witness or fabricated evidence. It's frustrating, but that's what the system requires. It doesn't sound like her attorneys are trying to argue that she's not guilty; only that she shouldn't be sent to prison without getting some treatment. That's their obligation to her and their role in the system. I think they understand that the children are the true victims here, and I don't have the sense that they're trying to argue that Andrea should go unpunished for what she did.

[ididnotnothat]

I agree. Many will be disgusted with this reversal but if there is legal cause for the reversal than so be it. Justice for All.

[Spurminator]

I simply don't see what good prison will do in a situation like this. Get her some treatment or put her in a straight jacket and study her drooling patterns.

[bigzak25]

all biblical names....maybe satan did possess her?

either way, she needs to be locked up for the rest of her life. in prison, in a mental hospital, whatever.

[Yonivore]

I simply don't see what good prison will do in a situation like this. Get her some treatment or put her in a straight jacket and study her drooling patterns.
Agreed...just make sure she's never released.

[Jekka]

I was living in Houston while all of this was going down, and the local news was saturated with it. While what she did is unspeakably horrible, there are a lot of things that never made it outside of local media it seems.

The woman was living in an RV trailor taking care of 5 children under the age of 8. Her husband enforced the "biblical idea" of the submissive wife to an astounding degree, and after severe depression following every birth her husband told her she had to keep having children. Her doctors told her husband that more children would be severely detrimental to her mental health, and he disregarded all of it while telling his wife to push out more kids. I think it is the husband's fault as much as it is hers, and that man should be doing some serious time.

She needs to be in a mental institution, not in a prison.

[Spurminator]

Unless the husband was holding a gun to her head to keep her from leaving him or procreating with him, you'd be sending him to prison for being a monumental asshole but not a criminal.

[Jekka]

Unless the husband was holding a gun to her head to keep her from leaving him or procreating with him, you'd be sending him to prison for being a monumental asshole but not a criminal.

I think you underestimate the effects of depression and mental abuse. Leaving him was probably never an option - and they should be some sort of reprocussions for him for directly ignoring a diagnosis that had the potential to cause what happened.

[Spurminator]

What would you convict him of? And what precedents are there for such a conviction?

[Useruser666]

I didn't think they were living in a trailer. They always showed a house on TV. I might be wrong since it's been a while.

They guy is an idiot and an ass but you can not convict him of anything. Selfesteem assault is not a crime. Serious time? That's not appropriate at all. At the very most maybe mandatory counciling.

[FromWayDowntown]

What would you convict him of? And what precedents are there for such a conviction?

If she was compelled into intercourse without her consent, it might be rape or sexual assault, or even for simple assault or battery, but that would assume that you could prove she hadn't consented -- a tough thing to do.

[Spurminator]

Well, rape and assault are clearly charges that could be brought if applicable, but from what I know of the case, it was simply his persuasion backed by their religious beliefs regarding the Wife's role in a marriage.

[FromWayDowntown]

Well, rape and assault are clearly charges that could be brought if applicable, but from what I know of the case, it was simply his persuasion backed by their religious beliefs regarding the Wife's role in a marriage.

Well, that's what I'm saying -- if she consented to that type of a marriage and hasn't really done anything to extricate herself from it (and particularly if she's not said or indicated that he can't have intercourse with her or that she won't have intercourse with him) then there's essentially no basis for any of those charges.

[mysterious_elf26]

Our court system has failed us again. Bush needs to get his head out of his ass and instead of focussing on Gay Marriage, he first needs to deal with our very own court system.

[ALVAREZ6]

Andrea Yates is one sick mother fucking bitch.

Killing 5 babies, you own kids man, WTF is wrong with her?

If i saw her on in public I would tie her legs a cow's hind legs with rope, and her arms to another cow.

Make those cows run in opposite directions, see how she likes it.

[ALVAREZ6]

These stupid jackasses these days imitating TV SHOWS.

retards.

There was something similar around 2 years ago.

2 brothers got together and murdered their mother, trying to imitate
the Soprano's.

[Jekka]

Our court system has failed us again. Bush needs to get his head out of his ass and instead of focussing on Gay Marriage, he first needs to deal with our very own court system.

Too true. Too many holes to either fall or escape through.

[Guru of Nothing]

This has little to nothing to do with Bush.

If you are gonna hate, learn how to do it properly.

[AlamoSpursFan]

Our court system has failed us again. Bush needs to get his head out of his ass and instead of focussing on Gay Marriage, he first needs to deal with our very own court system.

Bush didn't pick the gay marriage fight. GAY PEOPLE did. But why let facts get in the way of a mediocre post?

[Yonivore]

I say fry her...

http://boortz.com/images/funny/yates_zoloft.gif

[ALVAREZ6]

I say fry her...

http://boortz.com/images/funny/yates_zoloft.gif

that's not funny.

[Yonivore]

that's not funny.
I'm not sure it was meant to be funny...

[MannyIsGod]

Ah yes, Yonivore, ever the compasionate conservative.

[MannyIsGod]

Bush didn't pick the gay marriage fight. GAY PEOPLE did. But why let facts get in the way of a mediocre post?

Kinda like those damn blacks in the 60s huh?

[Yonivore]

Ah yes, Yonivore, ever the compasionate conservative.
Yeah, I feel horrible for the children she drowned.

[MannyIsGod]

OH, so it's SELECTIVE compasion, I SEE.

[Yonivore]

OH, so it's SELECTIVE compasion, I SEE.
Yeah...not, everyone deserves compassion.