[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
National News See other National News Articles Title: Jury Finds Andrea Yates Not Guilty Of Murdering Her Children Jury Finds Andrea Yates Not Guilty Of Murdering Her Children Wednesday, July 26, 2006 HOUSTON — A jury on Wednesday found Houston mom Andrea Yates not guilty of murdering her five kids by reason of insanity. The decision comes after the jury deliberated for three days in Yates' retrial to determine whether she was legally insane when she drowned her five kids in the family home's bathtub. Her 2002 murder conviction was overturned because of incorrect testimony by a witness. It's expected Yates will be committed to a state mental hospital, with periodic hearings before a judge to determine whether she should be released. She would have been 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 during this retrial because the first trial's jurors sentenced her to life in prison, and authorities found no new evidence. Yates is charged in only three of the deaths, which is common in cases involving multiple killings. Earlier in the day, jurors deliberating for a third day in the retrial asked to see a family photo and candid pictures of her five smiling youngsters. After about an hour of deliberations, they said they had reached a verdict. Attorneys were then called back to the courtroom. The jury has been trying to determine if Yates was legally insane when she drowned her kids. Soon after arriving at the courthouse on Wednesday, it reviewed the state's definition of "insanity." Texas law says someone can be found insane if, because of a severe mental illness, that person does not know the crime is wrong. In Yates' first murder trial, in 2002, the jury deliberated about four hours before finding her guilty. That conviction was overturned on appeal. Yates, 42, has again pleaded innocent by reason of insanity in her second murder trial. 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 in a delusional state 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. State District Judge Belinda Hill 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. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 9.
#9. To: Mind_Virus (#0)
I don't know how she could be considered anything BUT insane.
#11. To: Neil McIver (#9)
She is one of very few that I have seen that was obviously not in her right mind, unlike the Susan Smith's of the world that we usually see pleading insanity. I was glad to hear this verdict. The husband bears some responsibility for this though.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||