So much for justice...........

[StarOfAfrica2]

HOUSTON (Jan. 6) - Andrea Yates' murder conviction for drowning her children in the bathtub was overturned by an appeals court Thursday because a psychiatrist for the prosecution gave erroneous testimony that suggested the Texas mother got the idea from an episode of "Law & Order."

The ruling means Yates is entitled to a new trial, though prosecutors said they would try to have the conviction reinstated.

Yates, 40, is more than two years into a life sentence after a trial that stirred national debate over mothers who kill, postpartum depression and the legal definition of insanity.

The appeals court ruling turned on the testimony of Dr. Park Dietz, a forensic psychiatrist who consulted for "Law & Order" and helped prosecutors land a conviction in 2002. Dietz testified at the trial that shortly before Yates' crime occurred, a "Law & Order" episode ran about a woman who drowned her children and was found innocent by reason of insanity.

But it turned out that no such "Law & Order" episode existed.

"We conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Dr. Dietz's false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury," a three-judge panel of the First Texas Court of Appeals said.

A receptionist at Dietz's Newport Beach, Calif., office said Thursday that neither Dietz nor his firm had an immediate comment on the ruling. In its ruling, the court noted Dietz "acknowledged that he had made an error in his testimony."

On June 20, 2001, Yates drowned her five children one by one, then called police to her Houston home and showed them the bodies of Noah, 7, John, 5, Paul, 3, Luke, 2, and 6-month-old Mary.  
 
Yates pleaded insanity, and according to testimony at the trial, she was overwhelmed by motherhood, considered herself a bad mother, suffered postpartum depression, had attempted suicide and had been hospitalized for depression.

Five mental health experts for the defense testified that she did not know right from wrong or that she thought what she did was right.

Dietz, a nationally known authority who took part in the Jeffrey Dahmer and Unabomber cases, was the lone mental health expert to testify for the prosecution, and the only one to say she knew right from wrong. Ultimately, the jury rejected her claim of insanity.

"His testimony was critical to establish the state's case," the appeals court said. "Although the record does not show that Dr. Dietz intentionally lied in his testimony, his false testimony undoubtedly gave greater weight to his opinion."

In his testimony, Dietz said he consulted for the popular NBC series, and added: "As a matter of fact, there was a show of a woman with postpartum depression who drowned her children in the bathtub and was found insane and it was aired shortly before the crime occurred."

Later, during closing arguments, a prosecutor referred to the Dietz testimony to suggest that Yates learned from the TV show a way to escape responsibility for her actions. The prosecutor told the jury: "She watches `Law & Order' regularly, she sees this program. There is a way out. She tells that to Dr. Dietz. A way out."

The error in Dietz's testimony became known to prosecutors and jurors before the sentencing phase in 2002. The defense asked for a mistrial because of it, but the judge refused. The jury ultimately spared her from the death penalty.

The appeals court absolved the prosecutors of any wrongdoing. And Joe Owmby, who prosecuted Yates, said Thursday that he had no reason to doubt Dietz at the time.

"We fully intend to pursue a motion for a rehearing," said Harris County Assistant District Attorney Alan Curry.

Yates was thrilled by the news after learning of the ruling at the psychiatric prison where she is serving her sentence.

"She smiled and said she was basically just kind of in shock," said Todd Foxworth, warden at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Skyview Unit, who delivered the news. "But she was very happy. Physically and mentally, she's doing as well as I've ever seen her."

Yates' husband, Russell Yates, told CNN's Larry King on Thursday, "I'm happy, happy for Andrea."

"I think she needs to be in a state mental hospital until she's well," said Yates, who has filed for divorce. "Had she not been mentally ill, she never would've done what she did."

Defense attorney George Parnham said he had no plans to seek her release from the prison about 140 miles north of Houston, where she works in the flower garden and has janitorial duties.

"Andrea is where she needs to be right now, as far as security is concerned for her," he said. "The last thing Andrea needs, quite frankly from my perspective, is to walk from the TDCJ Skyview Unit into the public arena."

The Yates case, and others in Texas where the insanity defense was cited, have prompted Texas legislators to take another look at the state's insanity laws. The case also stirred debate over whether postpartum depression is properly recognized and taken seriously.

01/06/05 22:30 EST

[Munkii]

Very sad, I had to do an essay over this woman for both an english comp class and my psych class.  Very interesting theroies on her guilt and sanity.  I hope the conviction gets re-instated without having to go through a whole new trial.

[jEEZY]

I hope the conviction gets re-instated without having to go through a whole new trial.

Maybe in Russia comrade.  

Which begs the question: Why have trials in the first place?

The "expert" lied on the stand = new trial.

[midnight Target]

I find the lying expert to be much more disturbing than the fact that this woman will get a new trial.

[jEEZY]

   I find the lying expert to be much more disturbing than the fact that this woman will get a new trial.

Agreed.

[Mini D]

That's a very odd thing to lie about.  It's easily verifiable.

So... this makes the 3rd time in the last year that "experts" lying under oath has been exposed, actually more if you consider one of them did it multiple times.

FBI expert lies about blood/DNA testing
FBI expert lies about ability to discern 2 types of ink on a signature
A psychiatrist lies to solidify his stance.

There was a landmark child abuse / daycare case where an "expert" did the exact same thing with children's testimony.

I'm of the oppinion that expert testimony can only occur if prosecutors and defense use the testimony of EVERY expert they consult, not just the one that says what they want them to say... and if the experts are legally responsible for the accuracy of their testimony.

[storch]

Originally posted by midnight Target
I find the lying expert to be much more disturbing than the fact that this woman will get a new trial.

indeed

[Curval]

Any mother who calls her kids into the bathroom one at a time and drowns them is insane IMHO.  No sane mother would do this.

I agree with MT.

[SOB]

Yep, no sane person would do that.  We should put her down quickly and humanely.

[storch]

Originally posted by SOB
Yep, no sane person would do that.  We should put her down quickly and humanely.

or send her to France.  

[StarOfAfrica2]

Originally posted by midnight Target
I find the lying expert to be much more disturbing than the fact that this woman will get a new trial.

Which is really more what I was talking about in the title than the fact she got a new trial.  I went through PPD with my 1st wife, and the depression was real enough that we had to medicate her.  Her husband obviously believes at least part of it, and I believe its quite possible she could have gone off the deep end.  It doesnt excuse what happened, and if anything I think her husband should have been charged in this as well.  A father's responsibility is to protect his family, especially his children.  If he kept pushing more and more kids into her life, knowing her depression problems existed, and then leaving her alone with them..........

Anyway, thats not the argument.  Its the fact that, sane or not, this woman deserved a fair trial and got a side-show circus act instead.  I used to believe that despite occasional screw ups, our system was basically sound and worked most of the time as intended.  Then I keep seeing crap like this, cases overturned because of new evidence that exonerates people who have been in prison, sometimes on death row for years............  I'm starting to seriously question my faith in our judicial system.

[wombatt]

I find the fact that a TV show should have any bearing on the trial
at all is disturbing.

And remember she was only charged on three of the five murders so even if they don't retry her on those they can always open up the other two.

The women needs help and probably should never be allowed in society again im afraid.\

If any woman In a Texas Prison deserves a new trail it would be Darli Routier.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Then I keep seeing crap like this, cases overturned because of new evidence that exonerates people who have been in prison, sometimes on death row for years............  I'm starting to seriously question my faith in our judicial system.

You're absolutely right, we need a system of Justice where people can neither lie, nor be mistaken.

I'll get to work on that right away.

It sucks to see **** like this happen, no doubt. But to be honest, I'm not sure where to go to start improving outcomes.

-Sik

[StarOfAfrica2]

I didnt say I have an answer for it.  One thing I think we CAN do though, is start to hold the people responsible who DO claim to have answers.  I know that nothing is perfect, and there are always going to be people who try to manipulate the system to win at all costs.  When that means that we have prosecutors or "witnesses" who will say or do anything to make sure that their side wins, we have to be able to hold those people accountable for what they did, just as much as the criminals.  Maybe thats a pipe dream.

Things were so much simpler when we just strung em up from a tree.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2


Things were so much simpler when we just strung em up from a tree.

Was that before or after the fair trial

-Sik