Andrea Yates' Conviction Overturned
Thursday, January 06, 2005
|
| STORIES |
 |
LINKS |
|
HOUSTON A state appeals court has overturned the capital murder convictions against Andrea Yates (search) and ordered a new trial in the drownings of her children.
The Texas First Court of Appeals issued its ruling in Houston today in a 12-page opinion signed by court Justice Sam Nuchia.
Click here to read the decision.
Yates
was sentenced to life in prison in the 2001 deaths of three of her
children after jurors rejected her insanity defense. She was not tried
in the deaths of the other two. Psychiatrists testified that Yates
suffered from schizophrenia (search) and postpartum depression (search).
In
December, her attorneys told a three-judge panel of the appeals court
that she deserves a new trial because of 19 errors that were committed
in her 2002 trial.
Yates' attorney Troy McKinney focused on expert witness Park Dietz (search),
who McKinney said "told a whopper of a falsehood" 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.
Dietz
testified the episode aired shortly before the drownings, and testimony
during the trial indicated Yates was a viewer of the series.
After jurors found Yates guilty, attorneys in the case and jurors learned that no such "Law and Order" episode existed.
McKinney called the testimony the "dynamite" that had turned the tide of the trial against his client.
"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 in its decision Thursday. "We further conclude that Dr. Dietz's
false testimony affected the substantial rights of appellant."
Prosecutors
had said there was no evidence that Dietz intentionally lied, and that
he did not suggest that Yates used the episode to plan the killing.
"There
was a great deal of other evidence which revealed that (Yates) planned
and/or premeditated her killing of her children," prosecutor Alan Curry
wrote in his response to the appeal.
Yates'
attorneys also claim the Texas insanity standard, which required the
defendant prove she did not know her actions were wrong, is
unconstitutional because it does not define the words "know" and
"wrong."
Yates' husband, Russell, filed for divorce earlier this year.