Andrea Yates

[Anonymous]

On 2006-06-04 11:32:00, AtomicAnt wrote:

just because they were DEPRESSES what would u do?"

Was that you in the Spelling Bee on TV the other night?

Regardless, she wasn't just depresses, she was actively psychotic with command voices.

[Anonymous]

http://www.circleofsecurity.org/

[Anonymous]

Defense attacks DA in appeal
Attorney for mentally ill Hoosick Falls mother challenges murder conviction in drowning of son
 
By MICHELE MORGAN BOLTON, Staff writer
Click byline for more stories by writer.
First published: Thursday, June 8, 2006

ALBANY -- Rensselaer County District Attorney Patricia DeAngelis broke nearly every rule of the court to convict a mentally ill woman who thought she was seeing werewolves on the night she drowned her son in 2002, her lawyer argued before an appellate court Wednesday.

Jerry Frost made the case before the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court for the reversal of Christine Wilhelm's 50-to-life state prison sentence for murder, asking for a new trial.

   
Frost accused DeAngelis, then a deputy district attorney, of denying the Hoosick Falls woman the justice and treatment for mental illness she deserved before and during a six-week trial in 2003.

Frost said Wilhelm belongs in a psychiatric hospital, where she would likely remain for the rest of her life, not behind bars at a downstate women's facility.

"The public should be concerned about everything in this case," Frost told the five-member panel of judges. "Shame on Rensselaer County. The whole prosecution influenced the jury inappropriately. Ms. DeAngelis was so out of control I felt compelled to object 80 times during her summation."

The trial jury's verdict, which rejected Frost's defense that Wilhelm was not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, was "impelled by unfairness and inflamed by passion," he claimed.

"It left me to ponder at sentencing whether I was a visitor from a distant planet," he said. "There were eyes that didn't see. Ears that didn't hear. And hearts that did not feel."

Handling the appeal for DeAngelis, attorney Jennifer Shatz vigorously defended her boss.

"I would deny any misconduct took place," Shatz said. "There was so much overwhelming evidence of Christine Wilhelm's guilt and that she knew and appreciated the difference between right and wrong."

Wilhelm asked both for a priest and for forgiveness as she waited for arraignment in a Hoosick Falls police holding cell, Shatz said.

Frost claims DeAngelis intentionally delayed Wilhelm's arraignment and had a police matron spend long periods with the defendant with no attorney present to get evidence in the case.

Wilhelm's own statements during a 10-hour videotaped interview with forensic psychiatrist Park Dietz in which she calmly described the events of April 15, 2002, were the basis of the prosecution's case, according to Shatz. "I can't imagine anything to give a clearer picture of her state of mind than her own words," Shatz said.

Frost countered by recalling how Dietz shocked prosecution team when the expert witness who was paid $25,000 admitted under oath that he had no opinion about whether Wilhelm knew her actions were wrong.

Dietz's testimony in another case helped to convict Texas mother Andrea Yates of murder in the drowning of her five children four years ago. However, an appellate court in Texas later ordered a retrial because of errors in Dietz's testimony. That retrial is scheduled for later this month.

According to evidence presented at her trial, Wilhelm, who is a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, submerged 4-year-old Luke in his bath three separate times that night. Twice she resuscitated him, and the last time she held him down until he drowned, according to statements by Wilhelm made in a videotaped interview introduced at her trial.

She also pulled 5-year-old Peter under water by his ankles, after wrapping them with a dog leash, but then released him when he begged her to let go, according to Dietz's testimony.

During her argument Wednesday, Shatz also pointed to a phone call Wilhelm made to her mother on the night of the drowning. During the call, Wilhelm not only admitted what she'd tried to do to her little boys; she also asked whether police should be called.

The call, Shatz said, supported the prosecution contention that Wilhelm was rational at the time of the drowning.

Frost refuted the prosecution's claim Wilhelm was sane by reminding the court, during his rebuttal, of Margaret Kosiba's memorable trial testimony in which she claimed she wasn't sure if the call from her daughter was real or a dream.

According to Shatz, perhaps most damning were Wilhelm's words "I will go to jail for you," uttered as she carried her son back to the bathroom for the final time -- a scene that was described in detail by DeAngelis during the trial. Even Frost's expert witness, Dr. Stephen Price, conceded Wilhelm knew her conduct was illegal in the eyes of society, Shatz said. "The defendant has a record of using her insanity to her benefit."

Price testified over three days that Wilhelm was so delusional she believed she was helping the boys when she harmed them.

"The jury had every reason to reject Dr. Price's testimony and expert opinion, because it just didn't stand up to the light of common sense," Shatz said.

The foundation of Frost's appeal is that Wilhelm was so psychotic after opting to discontinue her medications that she thought her husband planned to sacrifice the boys in a satanic ritual. She also believed they'd been sexually abused.

After calling 911 to report the death, Wilhelm was arrested and held for 24 hours before being arraigned, which is the official start of a criminal case, he said.

He said police and DeAngelis delayed that intentionally as they acquired search warrants for the home, photographed Wilhelm nude and then reported she made spontaneous confessions in her cell -- all without a lawyer present.

Key to the prosecution's case was the testimony of county caseworkers Casi Maloney and Kathleen McGarry, who Frost claims were essentially acting as police agents on April 17, 2002, when they interviewed Wilhelm in Rensselaer County Jail. The women claimed Wilhelm told them she knew her actions were wrong.

The testimony of the social workers solidified DeAngelis' case, even though the women had destroyed their notes, Frost said. Rensselaer County Judge Patrick McGrath allowed the testimony to be presented to the jury, over Frost's objections, and in spite of an appellate decision of a similar case that said statements taken by police agents without an attorney present are inadmissible.

After Wednesday's hearing, a spokesman for DeAngelis downplayed Frost's allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and said the facts to be decided are clearly the dispute over the case workers' role. Of DeAngelis, Eric Wohlleber said, "We're confident she did nothing wrong."

A decision is expected sometime in July, Frost said.

Morgan Bolton can be reached at 434-2403 or by e-mail at mbolton@timesunion.com.

[Anonymous]

Wilhelm Attorney Argues Prosecutorial Misconduct

TROY---The alleged prosecutorial misconduct in yet another case prosecuted by Patricia DeAngelis and the Rensselaer County District Attorney's office is the issue in yet another case argued last week before the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court.

When Christine Wilhelm was convicted in 2003 of drowning her four-year-old son Luke in the bathtub and trying to do the same to five-year-old Peter, critics said that Wilhelm was mentally ill and shouldn't have been taken to trial. Her attorney says that she was seeing werewolves the night she drowned her son. He also says that DeAngelis, then an assistant district attorney, denied Wilhelm mental treatment.

DeAngelis pushed for a harsh sentence for the woman, now 42 and serving 50 years in prison---25 years to life for murder at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility and another 25 years to life term for attempted murder.

The jury had rejected Frost's trial defense that Wilhelm was not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.

In his argument before the appellate judges, Wilhelm's attorney Jerome Frost says that her rights were violated virtually from the minute she was arrested in April 2002. He says she was held for hours, denied access to an attorney before she was arraigned. His argument for a new trial is that she was mentally incompetent at the time of the crime and that prosecutorial misconduct permeated the entire case.

The district attorney's office claims everything was done properly and that Wilhelm had a fair trial.

"The jury's verdict had nothing to do with who they were or what they were. Justice was absent from Rensselaer County from the beginning of Christine Wilhelm's trial right through the verdict." Frost says that even if the court finds that Wilhelm's conviction should be set aside, she will be institutionalized for the rest of her life. He argued that admissions that Wilhelm made to social service workers weren't admissible because they aren't part of law enforcement.

It's expected that a decision in Wilhelm's appeal will be handed down sometime in July.

David Seay, executive director of the National Alliance for Mental Illness, says that Wilhelm never should have been taken to trial but in that she was, she should have received treatment rather than been imprisoned.

Seay said that Wilhelm and Andrea Yates, who also drowned her children in a bathtub, "have obviously committed horrific acts and no one can ever forget that" Seay said "On the other hand, these are very sick individuals with diagnosis of schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses. These individuals need treatment."

Wilhelm is a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, according to Frost, who is incapable of understanding her actions or to stand trial.

Frost wrote in the appeal brief that prosecutorial misconduct by DeAngelis deprived Wilhelm of a fair and that a reversal of the Wilhelm's conviction is mandated. He said there was a "litany of prosecutorial misconduct" by DeAngelis which included attacking Wilhelm's exercise of her right to counsel, accusing her of other crimes, asserting arguments without factual basis and even contrary to the fact, denigrating Wilhelm, her defense and her attorney, her expert witnesses and making herself an unsworn witness.

"Ultimately the DA's argument degenerates into an emotional diatribe made up of distortions of the facts and law and appeals to the jurors' emotions".

Frost said in the brief that there was no "rational support for the jury's verdict. The court should conclude as a matter of law that Christine Wilhelm at the time of her son's drowning and attempted drowning lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate her conduct was wrong and hold her not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect".

Frost also writes in his brief that following Wilhelm's arrest on April 16, 2002, that D'Angelis supervised her at the Hoosick Falls lockup prior to the arrival of a jail matron. Frost said this was grounds for DeAngelis to have been disqualified from prosecuting the case.

In the last two years, DeAngelis has been reversed at least five times by the state Appellate Division, four times for prosecutorial misconduct and once for lack of knowledge of the law. She was admonished for prosecutorial misconduct before a Grand Jury in 1998 and recently received a "confidential" letter from the Committee on Professional Standards, the disciplinary agency for attorneys, for inappropriate behavior.

Four times since last June, the appellate court has overturned sex crimes convictions on the grounds that DeAngelis and her office improperly attempted to shift the burden of proof, repeatedly strayed beyond the bounds of permissible conduct and denied defendants a fair trial.

Although ADA Jennifer Shatz argued for the district attorney's office that a 10-hour videotaped interview with forensic psychiatrist Park Dietz in which Wilhelm admitted her acts, Frost said that Dietz, who was paid $25,000 for his testimony, admitted under oath that he didn't have any opinion if Wilhelm knew her actions were wrong.

Dietz is the same forensic psychiatrist who had testified at the Andrea Yates trial, leading to her conviction in the drowning of her five children. But due to errors in Dietz's testimony, a Texas appeals court reversed the Yates conviction and ordered a new trial which is scheduled to begin this month. 6-10-06

© 2006 North Country Gazette

[Anonymous]

I am thinking about printing out this thread and mailing it to Ms. Yates, what do you guys think?

[Anonymous]

June 15, 2006, 12:20PM

Groups call for limit on experts at Yates retrial
Judge will decide whether to narrow witnesses to those with expertise in postpartum issues
By PEGGY O'HARE

Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

A group of women's mental health advocates, doctors and professors joined Andrea Yates' attorneys Wednesday in challenging the qualifications of expert witnesses the prosecution is expected to use in Yates' upcoming retrial.
ADVERTISEMENT

The 21 organizations and individuals, who jointly filed a motion in a Harris County court, argue that only experts fully familiar with postpartum psychosis should be allowed to testify on whether Yates knew that drowning her children was wrong.

Yates' attorneys are challenging the qualifications of the state's expert witnesses, including Dr. Michael Welner, a New York forensic psychiatrist who evaluated Yates during a two-day period last month at Rusk State Hospital.

The issue is pending before state District Judge Belinda Hill, who will preside over Yates' new capital murder trial, scheduled to begin June 26.

Conviction thrown out
Yates, 41, has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. She was sentenced to life in prison in 2002, but an appeals court threw out her capital murder conviction last year.

The court cited concerns that an expert's erroneous testimony might have swayed the jury.

The advocates who filed Wednesday's motion say that Yates clearly suffered from "severe postpartum psychosis" when she drowned her five children in a bathtub at the family's Clear Lake home on June 20, 2001.

But postpartum psychosis is an illness that is unfamiliar to many forensic mental health experts, the advocates said.

They argue that the integrity of the verdict is at stake, depending on which experts are allowed to testify in Yates' trial.

"Knowledge of the current research is required to ensure that the jury receives necessary information about postpartum psychosis and how it affected Mrs. Yates," the motion states. " ... The lack of expertise in the relevant mental health area presents the peril of misleading the jury."

The parties joining the motion included National Advocates for Pregnant Women, the Postpartum Resource Center of New York, Postpartum Support International and Texas Mental Health Consumers.

Harris County prosecutors said they will fight any effort to narrow the witness list.

"The state is going to oppose any attempt to prevent the jury from hearing everything it needs to hear in order to decide whether Andrea Yates is insane," said Alan Curry, appellate division chief of the District Attorney's Office.

"Limiting the evidence the jury is going to hear is probably not appropriate in a case like this."

Entitled to a hearing
Curry said he doesn't believe the judge is required to consider the advocates' brief, which he noted was filed by New York lawyers who do not purport to be licensed in Texas.

But the defense is entitled to a hearing on whether certain experts' testimony ? such as Welner's ? is admissible, he said.

"They're going to have every opportunity they need to explore his opinions and the basis for those opinions before he testifies," Curry said.

"I don't know if they're going to be satisfied as to his expertise, but I'm pretty confident the judge is going to be satisfied."

A postpartum disorder is a serious complication resulting from childbirth, the group said in its motion.

Its rarest and most severe form is postpartum psychosis, which can cause new mothers to hallucinate, hear voices and suffer insomnia, confusion or cognitive impairment, the advocates said. Only 0.2 percent of childbearing women suffer such severe symptoms, they said.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 70741.html

[Anonymous]

Cops: Man Stands By As Wife Drives Off Cliff With Kids

Children Survived

June 16, 2006

STONY POINT, N.Y. -- A man who knew his wife wanted to die stepped aside as she crashed their minivan down a 300-foot cliff with their children in the back seat, authorities said Friday.

Images: Mother Dead, Children Injured After Minivan Plunges Over Cliff

The children, who were strapped in, suffered only minor injuries, but their mother, 35-year-old Hejin Han, died.

Her husband, Victor Han, was arraigned Friday in Justice Court in the suburban town of Stony Point, about 40 miles northwest of New York City, on charges of promoting a suicide attempt, reckless endangerment and endangering the welfare of a child.

Bail was set at $75,000 cash or $100,000 bond, court clerk Diane Quinn said. There were no defense or prosecuting attorneys present at the initial court appearance, according to the town judge, William Franks.

Police said the family had stopped the car along a road in Bear Mountain State Park around 5:30 p.m. Wednesday. Han got out of the minivan and his wife "put the vehicle in drive and locked the doors," park police Col. James Warwick said Friday.

The vehicle then rolled over the cliff, tumbling nose-first, through scrub growth, down the mountainside into rocks below, police said.

Hejin Han was declared dead at the scene; the couple's 3- and 5-year-old daughters were taken to the hospital with minor injuries.

The car was parked on a scenic overlook, with a view of the Hudson River. Boulders have been placed there to keep cars from going off the cliff, but police said the vehicle just fit between two of them.

In the Staten Island neighborhood where the family lived, neighbors were "in disbelief. I knew Victor very well," said Kim Barbagallo, whose husband and Victor Han had worked together recently to rebuild the Barbagallo's home; Han designed it and Anthony Barbagallo, a builder, constructed it.

The two families lived across from each other on Elvin Street, where their four young children played together in the close-knit neighborhood that was a mix of various nationalities.

"Our kids were always outside playing ball together, or blowing bubbles," Kim Barbagallo said. "She was an at-home mom who took good care of the children. She'd always smile when you met her."

Another neighbor, Pamela Cropley, agreed, describing the family as caring and happy.

"They were playing with the children all the time," said Cropley. "His family was always outside waiting for him when he got home. They were just a happy, happy family."

The criminal complaint prepared by New York State Park Police states Victor Han "did intentionally drive Hejin Han to Perkins Memorial Drive while she was in a suicidal state of mind, park her vehicle near a steep cliff embankment, get out of the vehicle and walk away from the vehicle with the belief that Hejin Han wished to go to Bear Mountain to commit suicide."

It said Hejin Han was driving when the car went off the cliff.

Police had said Thursday that it looked like an accident that happened as Victor Han was outside looking at the scenery.

But by Friday they said the evidence indicated Han left the car knowing that his wife was suicidal. Han "afforded her an opportunity for her to carry out her intentions," state park police said in a news release.

Han was being held at the Rockland County jail pending another hearing Tuesday in Stony Point.

On Staten Island, "everybody on the block is very confused. Nobody was suspicious," said Barbagallo.

With their father in custody, 5-year-old Arianna Han and 3-year-old Itana Han, reportedly were released to their grandparents.

Associated Press

[Anonymous]

Andrea Yates Moved Out of Mental Hospital ? (06/16/2006)
   
Andrea Yates will be moved out of a mental hospital and into a jail cell for her upcoming retrial.

Yates is challenging 2002 ruling during which she was convicted of killing her children. Yates's attorney spent several hours in today?s hearing asking that Yates be transferred to a private mental health clinic during her retrial, claiming she is mentally unstable.

However, his motion was unsuccessful. Yates will be held in a jail cell for the length of her retrial.

[Anonymous]

Posted on Fri, Jun. 16, 2006



ANGELA K. BROWN
Associated Press

HOUSTON - Andrea Yates often struggles with deep depression or hallucinations around June 20, the day in 2001 when she drowned her five children in the bathtub. This year, Yates will be in court at her second murder trial around the anniversary.

In July 2004 Yates was hospitalized after starving herself for up to six weeks, losing about 30 pounds, according to the University of Texas Medical Branch Hospitals' discharge records. She believed she saw "babies yelling for help," the records showed.

Jurors in the retrial who will be selected beginning Thursday, will hear largely the same evidence as in the first trial, but also will hear about her psychotic episodes since her 2002 conviction that was later overturned on appeal, defense attorney George Parnham said.

"We've got four years of mental health records to show she's still severely mentally ill," Parnham said.

He maintains that severe postpartum psychosis prevented her from knowing that drowning her children, ages 6 months to 7 years, was wrong.

But prosecutors still insist that Yates does not meet Texas' legal definition of insanity: not knowing at the time that one's actions are wrong. Prosecutors plan to present the same evidence of how Yates killed the children after her husband left for work and before her mother-in-law arrived to help, and how Yates called 911 to report the crime.

"Everything I've seen has reaffirmed that she was sane at the time she killed her kids," prosecutor Kaylynn Williford said. "What's at the crux of this case is: You can be mentally ill and know right from wrong and be held criminally responsible."

Yates once again is pleading innocent by reason of insanity, and if convicted could be imprisoned for life. Because the first jury rejected the death penalty and decided on a life sentence, prosecutors cannot seek the death penalty again without presenting new evidence.

Last week, more than 20 individuals and groups - including Postpartum Support International, North American Society for Psychosocial Obstetrics and Gynecology, Texas Mental Health Consumers and New Jersey's former first lady Mary Jo Codey - asked the court to limit expert testimony to those familiar with postpartum psychosis.

The brief, which would affect some prosecution witnesses, says only those with significant experience treating the rare disorder should testify about whether Yates knew her actions were wrong.

The judge isn't required to consider the brief filed by New York attorneys. Opening statements start June 26, and the trial is expected to last through the end of July.

Last year the 1st Court of Appeals in Houston overturned her conviction, saying a prosecution witness' erroneous testimony could have influenced the jury's decision.

Dr. Park Dietz, a psychiatrist who has been a consultant for the "Law & Order" television series, told jurors that one episode depicting a woman who drowned her children in a bathtub - and was acquitted by reason of insanity - aired before the Yates children were killed.

Yates frequently watched the show, according to other testimony, and a prosecutor - not Dietz - suggested that she got the idea from the episode.

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

Although Parnham argued to halt the retrial, saying that testimony constituted prosecutorial misconduct and would result in double jeopardy if Yates were tried again, an appeals court upheld the judge's ruling that there was no misconduct because the error was unintentional.

For a year-and-a-half prosecutors have reviewed boxloads of evidence while preparing once again for the trial.

"That's what's kept me going," Williford said, pointing to one of the state's exhibits, a large board containing family pictures of the youngsters: 6-month-old Mary in a baby carrier; 2-year-old Luke holding his baby sister; 3-year-old Paul wearing pajamas and a fireman's hat; 5-year-old John leaning against a tree; and 7-year-old Noah grinning from ear to ear.

"It's very emotionally draining and difficult to go through this again: reviewing the evidence, looking at the autopsy photos. It's hard as a human being; it's harder as a mother," Williford said. "It's not any easier looking through those pictures five years later."

Prosecutors will call Dietz to testify again, along with other witnesses from the first trial, Williford said. She said the witness list was still being prepared and declined to say what the state may do differently this time.

"Basically, our case in chief will be the same," she said.

Parnham said he planned to call 40 to 50 witnesses, including the same doctors who previously testified about Yates' mental condition. as well as more about her stays at a psychiatric hospital shortly before the 2001 drownings,

Andrea's then-husband, Russell Yates, testified for the defense in her first trial. Parnham said he planned to call Rusty Yates again but would approach him in a "different" way. He declined to elaborate.

Rusty Yates, who did not return calls seeking comment, has said he continues to stand by Andrea, who he divorced last year.

In March Rusty Yates married Laura Arnold, an attractive, blond fellow NASA worker who is divorced with two children. Their wedding, at the same church where the funeral for the Yates youngsters was held, was two days before the originally scheduled start of Andrea's second trial.

Andrea Yates, who has been in a state psychiatric hospital since her release on $200,000 bond earlier this year, will be in the county jail during the trial, a judge ruled Friday.

[Anonymous]

June 16, 2006, 11:30PM

Yates to be jailed for retrial

Judge denies her attorney's request to house her at a Ben Taub unit

By PEGGY O'HARE
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

Andrea Yates will not be allowed to remain free on bail during her new capital murder trial, which begins later this month, a judge ruled Friday.

Yates' bail will be revoked on Monday and she must report to the Harris County Jail by 6 p.m., state District Judge Belinda Hill said.

Yates, who has been confined at Rusk State Hospital while awaiting her second trial for the June 2001 drownings of her children, was not in court for the ruling.

Attorneys for both sides agreed earlier this year that Yates' bail would be revoked and she would be housed in the County Jail's Mental Health and Mental Retardation Authority unit during her new trial, which begins June 26.

But defense attorney George Parnham asked the judge to reconsider on Friday, saying the Neuropsychiatric Center at Ben Taub General Hospital had agreed to accept Yates as a patient.

Noting that Tuesday will be the fifth anniversary of the children's deaths, Parnham told Hill that Yates' mental state typically deteriorates around that time.

He presented medical records showing that Yates stopped eating and lost 30 pounds in the summer of 2004.

"Each year, records will reflect, it is more or less a tough time for her," Parnham told the judge.

But prosecutor Joe Owmby said the county jail's mental health unit has two psychiatrists and can provide quality care and medication.

Owmby also contended that Yates' period of self-imposed starvation in 2004 resulted more from her husband's revelation that "he wished to get on with his life, divorce her and marry someone else."

Russell Yates divorced his wife in 2005 and remarried in March this year.

Hill denied Parnham's request without comment.

After the hearing, Owmby said Yates should not receive special treatment by being allowed to stay somewhere other than the jail during her trial.

"The treating physicians at the jail are competent professionals and do a good job," he said.

Yates, 41, has again pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to capital murder charges. She drowned her five children, ranging in age from 6 months to 7 years, in the bathtub at the family's Clear Lake-area home on June 20, 2001.

Yates was tried for three of those deaths and convicted of capital murder in 2002, but an appeals court ordered a new trial because of mistaken testimony from a forensic psychiatrist.

Yates will be on anti-psychotic medication during her new trial, but won't be as heavily medicated as she was during the first trial, Parnham said.

"The legal issue is one of competency: Can we get her through this while being legally competent? I think we can. ... She's not the same person she was in 2001," he said after the hearing.

Yates' history of mental illness includes diagnoses of schizophrenia and severe postpartum depression.

Efforts to head off a second trial failed earlier this year as Parnham rejected an agreement in which Yates would be sentenced to 35 years if she pleaded guilty or no contest to the lesser charge of murder. He asked that she serve her sentence in a mental institution, but prosecutors insisted on prison.

Also in Friday's hearing, Hill granted Parnham's request that prosecutors turn over any tests used by their new mental health expert, Dr. Michael Welner, during an 11-hour evaluation of Yates last month, or any other tests he relied on in concluding whether Yates knew right from wrong at the time of the drownings.

Prosecutors said they have not yet received Welner's findings.

At prosecutors' request, Hill also agreed Friday to prohibit any mention during the trial that Yates' capital murder conviction was reversed on appeal. She also forbade any reference to the erroneous testimony of forensic psychiatrist Park Dietz during the first trial.

Jury selection for the new trial will begin Thursday.

peggy.ohare@chron.com

[Anonymous]

June 20, 2006, 4:24PM

Potential jurors in Yates' case answer questionnaires
Associated Press

Sixty potential jurors in Andrea Yates' murder trial arrived at the courthouse and filled out jury questionnaires today, exactly five years after she drowned her five children in the bathtub.
ADVERTISEMENT

The other half of the 120-member jury pool was to fill out the questionnaires Wednesday, and jury selection was set for Thursday. Opening statements start Monday.

Yates, who has pleaded innocent by reason of insanity, will stay in a state Mental Health and Mental Retardation unit of the Harris County Jail during the trial. Later today, she was to be taken to jail from the state psychiatric hospital in Rusk where she has been staying since her February release on $200,000 bond.

The judge revoked her bond Friday and ordered her to return to jail this week, denying defense attorneys' request that she stay in a private mental facility in Houston during the trial.

She is being tried again because her 2002 conviction was overturned last year when an appeals court said jurors may have been swayed by a prosecution witness' erroneous testimony.

Dr. Park Dietz, a psychiatrist who has been a consultant for the Law & Order television series, told jurors that one episode depicting a woman who drowned her children in a bathtub ? and was acquitted by reason of insanity ? aired before the Yates children were killed. After Yates was convicted, those involved in the trial learned no such episode existed.

If convicted of capital murder, Yates, 41, will be sentenced to life in prison. Because the first jury rejected the death penalty and decided on a life sentence, prosecutors could not seek death again unless they had found new evidence.

As in the first trial, Yates is being tried only in the 2001 deaths of 6-month-old Mary, 5-year-old John and 7-year-old Noah. She was not charged in the deaths of 2-year-old Luke and 3-year-old Paul, which is common procedure in a case involving multiple slayings.

[Anonymous]

http://www.CBSNews.com

Insanity Remains Focus in Yates' 2nd Trial

HOUSTON, Jun. 18, 2006(AP) Andrea Yates often struggles with deep depression or hallucinations in the weeks around June 20, the date when she drowned her five children in their bathtub in 2001. During that period this year, Yates will be in court for her second murder trial.

Jurors, who will be selected beginning Thursday, will hear largely the same evidence as in Yates' first trial, but they also will hear about her psychotic episodes since her 2002 conviction, which was overturned on appeal, defense attorney George Parnham said.

In 2004, for example, Yates was hospitalized in July after starving herself for up to six weeks, losing about 30 pounds, according to the University of Texas Medical Branch Hospitals' discharge records. She believed she saw "babies yelling for help," the records show.

"We've got four years of mental health records to show she's still severely mentally ill," Parnham said.

Yates is again pleading innocent by reason of insanity. Parnham maintains that severe postpartum psychosis prevented her from knowing that it was wrong to drown her children, ages 6 months to 7 years.

Prosecutors, however, insist that Yates does not meet Texas' legal definition of insanity: not knowing at the time that one's actions are wrong. They plan to present the same evidence showing how Yates killed the children after her husband left for work and before her mother-in-law arrived to help, and how Yates called 911 to report the crime.

"Everything I've seen has reaffirmed that she was sane at the time she killed her kids," prosecutor Kaylynn Williford said. "What's at the crux of this case is: You can be mentally ill and know right from wrong and be held criminally responsible."

If convicted, Yates could be imprisoned for life. Because the first jury rejected the death penalty, prosecutors cannot seek that penalty again without presenting new evidence.

She has been in a state psychiatric hospital awaiting her retrial since she was released from prison earlier this year on $200,000 bail. Opening statements start June 26, and the trial is expected to last through the end of July.

Yates' conviction was overturned last year by the state's 1st Court of Appeals, which said a prosecution witness' erroneous testimony could have influenced the jury's decision.

That witness, Dr. Park Dietz, a psychiatrist who has been a consultant for the "Law & Order" television series, testified that one episode that aired before the Yates children were killed depicted a woman who drowned her children in a bathtub and was acquitted by reason of insanity.

Yates frequently watched the series, according to other testimony, and a prosecutor _ not Dietz _ suggested her actions were inspired by that episode.

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

In preparation for the retrial, prosecutors have reviewed boxloads of evidence.

"That's what's kept me going," Williford said, pointing to one of the state's exhibits, a large board holding pictures of the youngsters: 6-month-old Mary in a baby carrier; 2-year-old Luke holding his baby sister; 3-year-old Paul wearing pajamas and a fireman's hat; 5-year-old John leaning against a tree; and 7-year-old Noah grinning from ear to ear.

"It's very emotionally draining and difficult to go through this again: reviewing the evidence, looking at the autopsy photos. It's hard as a human being; it's harder as a mother," Williford said. "It's not any easier looking through those pictures five years later."

Prosecutors will call Dietz to testify again, along with other witnesses from the first trial, Williford said.

"Basically, our case in chief will be the same," she said, declining to say what the state may do differently this time.

For the defense, Parnham said he planned to call 40 to 50 witnesses, including the same doctors who previously testified about Yates' mental condition. He said jurors also will be told more about her stays at a psychiatric hospital shortly before the 2001 drownings.

Andrea's then-husband, Russell Yates, testified for the defense in her first trial. Parnham said he planned to call Rusty Yates again but would approach him in a "different" way. He would not elaborate.

Rusty Yates did not return calls seeking comment but has said he continues to stand by Andrea. He divorced her last year, and in March he remarried at the same church where the funeral for his children was held.

[Anonymous]

Wednesday » June 21 » 2006
 
Insanity remains focus in Andrea Yates' 2nd trial in drownings of 5 children
 
Angela K. Brown
Canadian Press

HOUSTON (AP) - Andrea Yates often struggles with deep depression or hallucinations in the weeks around June 20, the date when she drowned her five children in their bathtub in 2001. During that period this year, Yates will be in court for her second murder trial.

Jurors, who will be selected beginning Thursday, will hear largely the same evidence as in Yates' first trial, but they also will hear about her psychotic episodes since her 2002 conviction, which was overturned on appeal, defence lawyer George Parnham said.

In 2004, for example, Yates was hospitalized in July after starving herself for up to six weeks, losing about 30 pounds, according to the University of Texas Medical Branch Hospitals' discharge records. She believed she saw "babies yelling for help," the records show.

"We've got four years of mental health records to show she's still severely mentally ill," Parnham said.

Yates is again pleading not guilty by reason of insanity. Parnham maintains that severe postpartum psychosis prevented her from knowing that it was wrong to drown her children, ages six months to seven years.

Prosecutors, however, insist that Yates does not meet Texas' legal definition of insanity: not knowing at the time that one's actions are wrong. They plan to present the same evidence showing how Yates killed the children after her husband left for work and before her mother-in-law arrived to help, and how Yates called 911 to report the crime.

"Everything I've seen has reaffirmed that she was sane at the time she killed her kids," prosecutor Kaylynn Williford said. "What's at the crux of this case is: You can be mentally ill and know right from wrong and be held criminally responsible."

If convicted, Yates could be imprisoned for life. Because the first jury rejected the death penalty, prosecutors cannot seek that penalty again without presenting new evidence.

She has been in a state psychiatric hospital awaiting her retrial since she was released from prison earlier this year on $200,000 US bail. Opening statements start June 26, and the trial is expected to last through the end of July.

Yates' conviction was overturned last year by the state's 1st Court of Appeals, which said a prosecution witness' erroneous testimony could have influenced the jury's decision.

That witness, Dr. Park Dietz, a psychiatrist who has been a consultant for the Law & Order television series, testified that one episode that aired before the Yates children were killed depicted a woman who drowned her children in a bathtub and was acquitted by reason of insanity.

Yates frequently watched the series, according to other testimony, and a prosecutor - not Dietz - suggested her actions were inspired by that episode.

After the jury found Yates guilty, lawyers in the case learned no such episode existed.

In preparation for the retrial, prosecutors have reviewed boxloads of evidence.

"That's what's kept me going," Williford said, pointing to one of the state's exhibits, a large board holding pictures of the youngsters: six-month-old Mary in a baby carrier; two-year-old Luke holding his baby sister; three-year-old Paul wearing pyjamas and a fireman's hat; five-year-old John leaning against a tree; and seven-year-old Noah grinning from ear to ear.

"It's very emotionally draining and difficult to go through this again: reviewing the evidence, looking at the autopsy photos. It's hard as a human being; it's harder as a mother," Williford said. "It's not any easier looking through those pictures five years later."

Prosecutors will call Dietz to testify again, along with other witnesses from the first trial, Williford said.

"Basically, our case in chief will be the same," she said, declining to say what the state may do differently this time.

For the defence, Parnham said he planned to call 40 to 50 witnesses, including the same doctors who previously testified about Yates' mental condition. He said jurors also will be told more about her stays at a psychiatric hospital shortly before the 2001 drownings.

Andrea's then-husband, Russell Yates, testified for the defence in her first trial. Parnham said he planned to call Rusty Yates again but would approach him in a "different" way. He would not elaborate.

Rusty Yates did not return calls seeking comment but has said he continues to stand by Andrea. He divorced her last year, and in March he remarried at the same church where the funeral for his children was held.

© The Canadian Press 2006

[Anonymous]

Suzanne O'Malley

BIO

Suzanne O'Malley writes frequently for dramatic television series including NBC's Emmy-winning  Law & Order, Law and Order: Special Victim's Unit and the former New York Undercover. She is a freelance producer and on-air News Consultant for NBC and MSNBC, and has recently appeared on the Today Show with Katie Couric, Fox News, the CBS Early Show with Hannah Storm, CNN-TV Live Today, Court TV's Catherine Crier Show, MSNBC's Deborah Norville Tonight, American Morning with Paula Zahn, and National Public Radio's hour-long The Diane Rehm Show.

Suzanne O'Malley's insightful dispatches on the Andrea Yates trial appeared in The New York Times Magazine, Salon.com, O, The Oprah Magazine and on Dateline NBC.  The author's discovery of false testimony during the Yates trial resulted in the pending appeal of Yates' conviction. Her book on the Yates case, ARE YOU THERE ALONE, was published in January 2004 by Simon & Schuster.

She is a former Editor-at-Large at Inside.com (2000-2001), Contributing Editor of New York Magazine (1994-1996), and senior editor of Esquire Magazine. She was nominated for a National Magazine Award by Redbook in 1997 for an article on legal trends in rape defenses, and by Harper's Bazaar in 1994 for reporting on girl gang initiation rituals involving sex with HIV-positive partners. Dateline NBC and Donahue featured the story.

Her investigative reporting, articles and reviews have appeared in The New York Times Magazine, The New York Times Book Review, New York Magazine, People,   O, the Oprah Magazine, Esquire, Harper's Bazaar, Cosmopolitan, Glamour, Ms., Child, Playboy, Redbook, and Texas Monthly.  She was restaurant critic for Esquire magazine (1978-80), and book editor/reviewer at Houston City and D Magazine (1979-80).

Ms. O'Malley was raised in Dallas and is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of The University of Texas at Austin.  She lives in New York City and Houston, Texas.

Back to top.  

INTERVIEW

February 20, 2004

In June 2001, Andrea Yates drowned her five children. The following year she was sentenced to life imprisonment for these murders. Suzanne O'Malley, a journalist, covered this trial for numerous publications and had unique access to Andrea and Rusty Yates. As the author of ARE YOU THERE ALONE?: The Unspeakable Crime of Andrea Yates, O'Malley talks to Bookreporter.com's Diana Keough about Andrea and Rusty Yates, the depths of Andrea's mental illness and what she has been hearing from readers.

Q: You are the only writer in communication with Andrea Yates. Did that change how you feel about her? What do you feel about Andrea Yates?

SOM: Receiving 30,000 words of correspondence from Andrea Yates informed my thinking about her --- big time. I encourage Bookreporter.com readers to read Andrea Yates's letters themselves and form their own feelings and opinions.

Q: You are the only writer who got to spend considerable time with Rusty Yates. Did that change how you feel about him? What do you feel about Rusty Yates?

SOM: Sure, spending time with Rusty Yates changed my thinking about him. But the 2,000 pages of Andrea Yates's medical records affected me more. Before I read them, I felt Rusty Yates was a monster.

Q: Who do you feel is most culpable in the crimes of Andrea Yates?

SOM: I'd say "what," not "who," is the question. My answer is Ignorance and Fear. In writing ARE YOU THERE ALONE?, I discovered that Andrea Yates was misdiagnosed, improperly medicated, and inadequately treated. There are psychiatrists who could have diagnosed her over the phone. Trouble is, there are only about 5 of them in the world. This is why parents, grandparents, educators, physicians and lawyers are reading "Are You There Alone?" Postpartum depression is THE most common adverse event of childbirth. If this scenario could happen to the Yates family, it could happen to you.

Q: You are a mother. Did you have to turn a part of yourself off emotionally to be able to listen to the tapes of Andrea describing how she drowned each child, how they struggled, etc.?

SOM: No. As Anna Quindlen wrote in Newsweek, what got to me was that forbidden look that passed between women that secretly said "I understand how this could have happened."

Q: Were there any other things you listened to or discovered during the course of the trial or researching this book that were emotionally hard to hear/write about?

SOM: For me, nothing is as hard to endure as not being allowed to learn. However difficult a piece of research was for me, it was always less painful than the ignorance that preceded it.

Q: You repeatedly reference the strong religious beliefs of not only the Yates, but also the Woronieckis, as well as other friends of the Yates and the entire state of Texas. What is your own religious background?

SOM: I am Roman Catholic.

Q: How do you feel about strong religious beliefs in others?

SOM: I respect strong religious beliefs held by others. Religious beliefs that result in civil strife, however, are tragic and antithetical to my idea of religion. Not to mention making me furious.

Q: Do you consider religion to be a crutch?

SOM: No

Q: Is there something about religion in Texas ---- the state where you were raised --- that's different than religion as practiced elsewhere?

SOM: The only places I have lived for a significant time are New York City and Texas. In my experience, there's a stunning difference between the two places in the overt practice and integration of religion in daily life. My opinion is that New York is more secular and religious beliefs are often more metaphorically held than in Texas. I imagine these differences exist in other parts of the country (where I have less experience to draw from) as well.

Q: While you touch on religion and the Woronieckis as having a hand in Andrea's crimes, you never completely "go there." Why did you not hit this issue harder?

SOM: I didn't hit harder on the Woroniecki issue because I don't believe religion causes mental illness. But as I describe in ARE YOU ALONE?, the Woronieckis earmarked me --- as they did Andrea Yates --- to be potentially among their chosen, and that was a sometimes startling experience.

Q: Do you think Rusty has forgiven Andrea?

SOM: Absolutely.

Q: How do you explain that?

SOM: How I explain it is that Rusty Yates understands his wife is mentally ill. For him, the crime of killing their five children never required forgiveness --- the deaths were a tragedy from which to seek future safeguards, not blame.

Q: Can Rusty Yates ever forget that a psychotic person like his wife is capable of such crimes?

SOM: No.

Q: You reference a number of letters that Andrea wrote you. At any point does she speak of her feelings for Rusty?

SOM: Yes, Andrea Yates frequently speaks of her feelings for her husband in letters to me. She's in love with him.

Q: Do you think that a woman with her degree of mental illness is incapable of knowing what she really feels about another person?

SOM: I believe that Andrea Yates is capable of knowing what she feels about another person and expressing those feelings. Many mental illnesses, including Andrea Yates's, "wax and wane." The letters excerpted in ARE YOU THERE ALONE? were generally written when she was stable; she is unable to write when she is incoherent.

Q: At this point is Andrea getting treatment for her illness in prison?

SOM: Andrea Yates is receiving appropriate medication for her illness in prison. However, the point of prison is punishment for crime, not treatment for mental illness.

Q: Characterize Rusty Yates for us. He seems like a man who things happen to. The world seems to circle around him with him not really taking grasp of any issue except as a topline thought. He knew Andrea was ill, but never hired an attorney or other advocate to help him get her the care she desperately needed. He knew she was ill, but still left the children with her that morning. Andrea's attorney was hired by her three brothers without Rusty even being consulted. This does not seem like a man "in charge." Are these sentiments on target?
SOM: No.

1) There is a Rusty Yates standing on every street corner in America. I don't perceive him to be different from many spouses. If you are talking to him about feelings on a Sunday afternoon in front of the television set, he will interrupt what you're saying to appreciate a touchdown or a really good putt.

2) Read the book excerpts from the 2,000 pages of Andrea Yates's medical records. If there's one thing Rusty Yates is, it's an advocate. When psychiatrists are unable to diagnose an illness after years of family effort, I wonder how a family, a lawyer, or any layman can succeed.

3) Hindsight is 20/20. Andrea Yates was left alone with the children for an hour that Wednesday morning when Rusty Yates left for work. Andrea and the children were watching television and Rusty's mother was on her way over to look after them. When Andrea had been ill the first time (in 1999, after the birth of her 4th child), she had twice tried to kill herself. The family's focus was on making sure she didn't try to kill herself again. They never thought she would harm the children.

4) Andrea Yates's attorney was hired by her then 72-year-old mother two days after the murders (with the consultation of her three brothers). Prior to that Friday morning, Rusty Yates was identifying the dead bodies of his children at the coroner's office, selecting their coffins, making funeral arrangements, seeing a NASA grief counselor, ferrying relatives to and from the airport, giving the Assistant District Attorney a tour of the crime scene, and seeking advice from a friend who is an attorney. Rusty Yates had also scheduled a meeting that Friday afternoon with noted defense attorney Mike Ramsay (who recently won the Robert Durst murder and dismemberment case in Galveston, Texas). Ramsay had been recommended to Yates by the office of NBC's Katie Couric. So had the attorney Andrea's mother had selected. Rusty Yates agreed with his in-law's choice of George Parnham.

Q: In his grief, just about everything Rusty did --- from creating a website in his children's memory to the way he methodically cleaned out the bathtub and removed the bed the children were placed on after they died --- seems like the actions of someone rather emotionally detached from the situation at hand. Did you feel this way about Rusty?

SOM: First, let me say that, it was Randy Yates --- Rusty's brother --- who cleaned the bathtub. Relatives had begun to arrive for the funeral and some were staying at the house. Rusty says he himself was never able to set foot in that tub. He had it removed and smashed to pieces with a sledgehammer.

Rusty Yates is a career NASA engineer. His job is safety systems for the space shuttle program. It is fair to say he is methodical.

Q: Are Andrea and Rusty hard people to read or did your editor discourage you from including more of your own insight?

SOM: My ambition was to be the reader's proxy --- to uncover facts that enable readers to have their own insights.

Q: Do you have any personal insights on them that you didn't include?

SOM: Nope. I left it all in the book.

Q: It seems incredible in this day and age, between the Internet and e-mail, that the key fact about the falsehood of the "Law and Order" episode about the mother killing her children from postpartum depression and getting off was not vetted immediately by the defense. Why do you think this happened?

SOM: Yates's defense attorney George Parnham asked forensic psychiatrist and expert witness Park Dietz whether he was a consultant for the television series Law & Order. Dietz said yes and volunteered the information regarding the episode. Who had any reason to think Dietz was mistaken? More than that, Dietz had consulted on 300 episodes of Law & Order --- who was going to screen them all to see if he'd made a mistake?

Q: High profile trials like this one often take on a media frenzy that gives them almost a life of their own. How was this trial similar or dissimilar to others that you covered?

SOM: I believe that the unprecedented media frenzy surrounding the Yates case --- not even 9/11 knocked it out of the headlines --- was in large part due to the gag order the trial judge placed on witnesses. An information vacuum drove the mystery. A month after Andrea Yates was sentenced to life in prison, the gag order was declared unconstitutional by a special prosecutor.

Q: Is this a case that will haunt you, or does your role as a journalist not allow this?

SOM: No, this case won't haunt me --- though it would have if I hadn't written the book. Once you pull back the curtain, shed light in all the dark corners, the haunting vanishes.

Q: What is the question you are most being asked as you do media for this book? What are you hearing from readers?

SOM: The question I am most asked is: 'How could this have happened?' What I hear often is how sorry people feel for Andrea Yates and her family. How they don't think she belongs in prison. Shocking, considering she killed five children. Not a single person has condemned Andrea Yates during interviews with me.

Q: What's your next project?

SOM: I've begun writing another book that solves a case which has withstood twenty years of legal and media scrutiny with no conviction.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redir ... 0743244850

© Copyright 1996-2006, Bookreporter.com

[Anonymous]

Friday, June 23, 2006

Jury selected in Yates re-trial

Wire Report

HOUSTON - A jury of eight men and seven women was selected Thursday to hear the second trial of Andrea Yates, who has pleaded innocent by reason of insanity in the drowning deaths of her children five years ago this week.

The 15-member panel includes three alternates, who will be released before deliberations begin.

Several of the potential jurors questioned during the daylong proceedings said they disagreed with the insanity defense in general. Texas' legal definition of insanity states that the defendant, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, did not know at the time of the offense that the conduct was wrong.