| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| Jury Finds Yates Insane, Not Guilty |
| 2006-07-26 |
| A Harris County jury has found Andrea Yates not guilty by reason of insanity during her second capital murder trial for the drowning deaths of her children in the family's bathtub in 2001. The verdict upholding Yates' insanity defense comes after the jury deliberated more than 12 hours and spent two nights sequestered at an area hotel . The acquittal in Yates' second capital murder trial follows nearly a month's worth of exhaustive testimony, capped by four hours of emotional closing arguments Monday, during which Yates broke down in tears and her former husband, Russell Yates, abruptly left the courtroom. The jury's verdict means Yates, 42, will be sent to a state mental hospital for treatment, rather than be sentenced to life in prison. Shortly before 10:30 this morning, the jury sent a note requesting exhibits showing a family portrait and a photo of the children before their deaths. Over the past two days, the jury appeared to focus on medical expert testimony from both prosecution and defense witnesses. Tuesday, they asked to see video tapes mental-health experts made of their interviews with Yates after the killings as well as testimony from Park Dietz, a prosecution expert witness, about Yates' statements regarding Satan's presence. It is unknown how long Yates will be hospitalized, but she will be subject to periodic reviews by state District Judge Belinda Hill's court. The trial is the second time Yates has faced a jury. She was convicted in 2002 of the crime and sentenced to life in prison, but an appeals court last year threw out that conviction based on a forensic psychiatrist's erroneous testimony. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #12 Those breaks are longer term over at Daily Kos... |
| Posted by: Inspector Clueso 2006-07-26 20:02 |
| #11 I've witnessed a couple of short term psychotic breaks. Those people really did not have any control over their actions during those times. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2006-07-26 18:57 |
| #10 I agree with Glenmore and wxjames. No mother in her right mind would do such a thing. Go read 1st Kings, Chap. 3, again. Solomon nailed it. |
| Posted by: mac 2006-07-26 18:30 |
| #9 The insanity defense pre-date Freudian psychology. It was being used in the 19th century. The standards were determined not 'experts', cause there were none back then. It was determined by the jury and its observation of the accused. However, through the modern guile of 20th Century lawyering, its definition has been expanded with the help of In my book nothing stopped Ms. Yates, from just packing up and hightailing it out of the household. If this had been the father, you'd think he'd get a second chance? |
| Posted by: Jomonter Sneart4557 2006-07-26 17:10 |
| #8 What she did is the very definition of insanity. And for her sake I hope she stays insane because I can't even imagine how she would feel if she became sane enough to comprehend what she did. This is not to say she should be let loose - just keep her locked up and heavily sedated the rest of her natural life, I think. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2006-07-26 16:27 |
| #7 Andrea Yates will be slumped in the corner of her room for a few decades and then die of a broken heart. She was sane enough to bear and raise 5 babies. She will be sane enough to relive their death again and again. Letting her live is cruel. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-07-26 16:05 |
| #6 Sorry, but Andrea Yates should be drowned in a cesspool forthwith. |
| Posted by: RWV 2006-07-26 15:25 |
| #5 Well you're right Steve. I'm fully aware of this concept in law. My question was more a poorly worded challenge to this concept. "guilty but insane" allows for an acknowledgement that the person is guilty of the crime, with extenuating circumstances that affect the punishment; whereas, I believe, NGRI does not. I know this is largely a semantic argument, but seeing that crime is now often looked upon as a disease that must be 'cured', rather than an offense that must be punished, I think a rewording is important. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-07-26 14:58 |
| #4 Guilt versus innocence is based on culpability: you did wrong and you had the ability to discern right from wrong. A verdict of 'not guilty by reason of insanity' means that the jury believes she wasn't capable of knowing right from wrong, and therefore whether she did it or not (legally) isn't relevant. She doesn't get off, and I really, really doubt she's ever going to be freed. Some states have changed this to allow a verdict of 'guilty but insane' or such wording. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-07-26 14:37 |
| #3 Court also finds kiddies "still dead". |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2006-07-26 14:13 |
| #2 Coming up in about six months to a year: "Hey! I'm CURED!" Book it... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2006-07-26 14:12 |
| #1 How is "insanity" a defense? I don't believe she was insane, but even if she was, how does that affect culpability? How about a change in the law allowing a verdict of "guilty, but insane"? Guilty means you did it. Insanity is a whole other matter, subjecting the courts to a dog and pony show of 'experts', some of whom have obvious ulterior motives. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-07-26 14:07 |