PDA

View Full Version : Andrea Yates getting a new trial


memyselfI
01-06-2005, 08:50 AM
conviction thrown out due to false testimony by a prosecution witness...a psychologist. I remember when this issue surfaced that I thought it should have been overturned. How very sad the family will have to go through a new trial because of the lies told by a shrink. :cuss:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20050106/ap_on_re_us/andrea_yates
Texas Mom's Murder Convictions Overturned

HOUSTON - Andrea Yates' capital murder convictions for drowning her children were overturned Thursday by an appeals court, which ruled a prosecution expert witness gave false testimony at her trial.

Yates' lawyers had argued at a hearing 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.

After jurors found Yates guilty, attorneys in the case and jurors learned no such episode existed.

"We conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Dr. Dietz's false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury," the court ruled. "We further conclude that Dr. Dietz's false testimony affected the substantial rights of appellant."


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.

memyselfI
01-06-2005, 08:51 AM
Mods you might want to move this to DC. Sorry.

Cochise
01-06-2005, 08:56 AM
Duhnise is back here to defend her hero again... great...

Baby Lee
01-06-2005, 08:59 AM
Mods you might want to move this to DC. Sorry.
DC is a political subforum, not a subforum for all NFBTs. Unless this turns into a naked Lib/Con slapfest, there's no reason to move.
Grow a pair people.

memyselfI
01-06-2005, 09:01 AM
DC is a political subforum, not a subforum for all NFBTs. Unless this turns into a naked Lib/Con slapfest, there's no reason to move.
Grow a pair people.


Oh, I have no doubt this will turn into some blame the Libs choir thus I suggested the move AHEAD of time.

memyselfI
01-06-2005, 09:08 AM
Duhnise is back here to defend her hero again... great...


She is not my hero. But if there were ever a case for insanity it would be this one.

Kris Kringle
01-06-2005, 09:09 AM
Oh, I have no doubt this will turn into some blame the Libs choir thus I suggested the move AHEAD of time. I would like to say, for the record, that the libs are to blame for this travesty of justice. :mad:

Baby Lee
01-06-2005, 09:10 AM
Oh, I have no doubt this will turn into some blame the Libs choir thus I suggested the move AHEAD of time.
What's political about whether it's OK to lie under oath?


Uhhh, nevermind.

Cochise
01-06-2005, 09:10 AM
What's political about whether it's OK to lie under oath?


Uhhh, nevermind.

Ooops, it depends on the topic!

memyselfI
01-06-2005, 09:17 AM
What's political about whether it's OK to lie under oath?


Uhhh, nevermind.

Some would say the lie was not detrimental to her trial and the ends justified the means...

Baby Lee
01-06-2005, 09:21 AM
Some would say the lie was not detrimental to her trial and the ends justified the means...
http://www.texnews.com/1998/2003/texas/texas_Grand_jur919.html
During cross examination by defense attorney George Parnham, Dietz described a television show about a mother who drowned her children and was acquitted with an insanity defense. He told jurors the show aired before Yates killed her own children in June 2001.

Dietz had been a consultant for the television show Law and Order.

In closing arguments, prosecutors said the episode influenced Yates because she saw it as way out of her trapped marriage.

Two days later, defense attorneys and prosecutors learned from Dietz that there was no such episode. They attorneys then wrote a statement about the error that was read to jurors before they decided on Yates' punishment.

memyselfI
01-06-2005, 09:23 AM
http://www.texnews.com/1998/2003/texas/texas_Grand_jur919.html

Your point?

Iowanian
01-06-2005, 09:49 AM
Its too bad one of the convicts didn't just drown her in a Stainless Throne full of Cornpickles.

would have saved tax payers a TON of money.

Cochise
01-06-2005, 09:53 AM
Its too bad one of the convicts didn't just drown her in a Stainless Throne full of Cornpickles.

would have saved tax payers a TON of money.

Yeah, it would have been a lot simpler and saved millions if someone would have just Dahmer-ed her already.

The Pedestrian
01-06-2005, 10:45 AM
That woman who drowned 5 kids? Geez, where's a sniper..."We the jury find the defendant guilt--" **BANG** "well, I guess we now find the defendant dead."

BIG_DADDY
01-06-2005, 10:53 AM
I wonder how much this is going to run. Good god kill her already.

The Pedestrian
01-06-2005, 10:55 AM
I wonder how much this is going to run. Good god kill her already.

The libs just want to raise the average cost of death penalty cases 'cause they think it'll wisk some moderates to their side...

HC_Chief
01-06-2005, 10:57 AM
A $.25 bullet will take care of that problem.

Brock
01-06-2005, 10:59 AM
Please ban this f*cking moron already.

memyselfI
01-06-2005, 10:59 AM
The libs just want to raise the average cost of death penalty cases 'cause they think it'll wisk some moderates to their side...

ding, ding, ding, we have our first 'unexpected and quite surprising' (not) reference!!!!

FTR, Ms. Yates is not eligible for the death penalty on her re-trial because she was not sentenced for the penalty at the first.

Jenny Gump
01-06-2005, 11:02 AM
I seriously think I could drown her myself. To hold those precious little faces underwater, literally makes me shudder. What a horrible waste of a human being.