View Profile
View Forum Posts
Full story hereAndrea Yates' Murder Conviction Overturned
8 minutes ago U.S. National - AP
By MICHAEL GRACZYK, Associated Press Writer
HOUSTON - 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."
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 24 of 24
-
-
That is fu**ed up, on the other hand, she is not playing with a full deck.
There will be another trial. -
They're right not to let her out yet. she'd be dead in minutes.
-
I will not get political. I will not....
This should piss off more then texas though.
If the courts feel she did't get a fair trail then give her another. Its that simple. -
i assume she will be re-tried .. the judge had no choice when a witness lied (and the prosecution didnt check the facts - which is shoddy work)
"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) -
nothing to do w/ texas
"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) -
Member
- Nov 2002
- Jacksonville, FL
She never should have been released from the hospital the first time! And her husband should have recognized the danger he was putting his children in when he left them alone with her. She had a LONG history of serious mental illness, but he insisted she be released from the hospital and home school their children. Beyond that, he should bear a great share of the blame for having children with her to begin with, once he became aware of her condition. She's a very sick woman - but he doesn't have any (apparent) mental illness and should have known better......
-
They ain't gonna let her out... BUT she does deserve a fair trial... and it may take a little of the spotlight off Numbnuts (M Jackson)
-
smoking gun got more good stuff on jackson -- i would say his goose is cooked , if guilty or not (strong indications that accuser family is a littel wacko themselves - though no excuse if MJ did even 1/100 of what they said he did - and good evidence that he did it appears) ////
"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) -
She will be retried, the article says so. So there goes another X million of our tax dollars.
-
i cant understand though why the judge could not have told the jury to disregard that witness's remarks completely -- the case did not hinge on that one witness (there was more than enough evidence) ... that has been done before .... it would not be without precedence -- maybe with a death penalty involved , they can not chance it ....
"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) -
A judge can certainly do that, and it is done frequently, though it is not always enough to cure errors on the record. Just having the jury hear it at all can be prejudicial enough to the defendant that a mistrial is necessary.
However, the defense did not learn of the error until after she had been convicted. The ruling came before the judge had a chance to try to cure the defect.
Also, without really getting into it all, there are different standards for reviewing error on appeal, and what standard is applied depends on the error and how it was preserved at trial. Often you have to show that "but for" the error, the jury would have decided the other way. This is an extremely high burden and the majority of the time the appellate court will fully admit that the error occurred and that the defendant was prejudiced, but that it is not sufficient to overturn the case. Here, she only had to meet a low burden of showing that the jury's decision "could" have been affected by the false testimony. This is a low standard to meet.
The State will appeal this further and hopefully the verdict will be reinstated. To retry this thing will just delay the inevitable and waste alot of time and money. -
Things always look simple on retrospect.Originally Posted by JohnnyCNote
Regards.Michael Tam
w: Morsels of Evidence -
adam -- thanks for the explanation and you are right , the outcome is inevitable 4 sure ... they of course have to go through the strokes .....
is she up for the death sentence ? if so -- dont they make sure everything has to be even more in order (plus get an auto appeal in some states ?
all at taxpayer expense of course -- most of the time .."Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) -
Member
- Nov 2002
- Jacksonville, FL
-
I've always said this. They never should have allowed her out of the hospital in the first place.....Originally Posted by vitualis -
She was, and apparantly will be again, prosecuted for capital murder. If found guilty there are only two possible sentences in Texas, life imprisonment and the death penalty. She could actually wind up worse off because of this and get the death penalty this time.
Any case can be reversed due to error, and no judge ever wants to have their decision overruled, so there's always an attempt to get things right the first time around. High stakes in a case probably do make everyone double check everything, especially when its a high profile case like this. But you'd be suprised how lightly defense lawyers can take a case when death is on the line for their clients. There was guy who was sentenced to death in Tx. who had his conviction overturned because his State appointed lawyer kept falling asleep during the trial.
If convicted of capital murder, appeal is always automatic in the United States, and if they don't have any money then yes, the State has to foot the bill. -
I know I've said this before, but whatever happened to vigilantism?
Nothing can stop me now, 'cause I don't care anymore. -
I'm glad this happened. If she is crazy, she shouldn't be executed.
Hello. -
Crazy's a reason, not an excuse.
Nothing can stop me now, 'cause I don't care anymore. -
I am just glad we don't execute the criminally insane. Once they are incarcirated, they are no longer a harm to anyone, and killing them for something they had no control makes no sense. I like to think I live in a world where most things make sense. (As we boldly cross the no politics frontier).
Hello. -
When you find it, save me a seat. Do you really believe she'll be incarcerated for the rest of her life?
Nothing can stop me now, 'cause I don't care anymore. -
Of course. What mother in her right mind would do such a thing? Will killing her cure her or bring the children back? Would it be granting the wishes of the husband and father? His children are gone, and even though he is pleading for the wife's life, do we go ahead and execute her just the same, even though she has a psychiatric history?Originally Posted by ViRaL1Hello.
-
She's not the first, and I don't really question her sanity. I'm sure she's not quite right, but I still have a hard time believing she didn't know what she was doing at all, or that it was wrong.
Nothing can stop me now, 'cause I don't care anymore. -
I don't know the particulars in this case, but in post-natal depression and post-natal psychosis, it is quite common for the mother to feel the need to kill her children.
Common delusions include belief that the child is "evil" or the "devil" or nihilistic delusions that the world is a terrible place and that they are actually saving the child. In many of these cases, the mother is actually tormented with guilt with having these thoughts.
Unless you actually have an appreciation of mental illness, don't judge what appears to be bizarre behaviour too harshly.
Regards.Michael Tam
w: Morsels of Evidence
Quote
Visit Homepage
