Questions for Debate:

If retried, do you think Andrea Yates will be convicted again in the drowning murders of her children?

Would you have overturned the conviction based on the inaccuracy of Dietz's testimony - given the fact that Yates admits to the murders?

If retried, do you think Andrea Yates will be convicted again in the drowning murders of her children?

There is really no telling as to whether she will be convicted again.
Although, I do think she should definitely be retried.
I'm just wondering if previous testimony will be allowed or not.
If not, it may be a little harder to get a conviction.

Would you have overturned the conviction based on the inaccuracy of Dietz's testimony - given the fact that Yates admits to the murders?

I would have no choice, everybody has a right to a jury trial whether they admit to the crime or not.
And, I would charge Dietz with perjury and fine him and or jail him for lying.
What a waste of everybody's time and money this has been.

If retried, do you think Andrea Yates will be convicted again in the drowning murders of her children?

My guess would be yes, she will be convicted again and I'll expand on that in the response to the second question.


Would you have overturned the conviction based on the inaccuracy of Dietz's testimony - given the fact that Yates admits to the murders?

From what I understand of this trial it would appear that the defense was some sort of insanity defense - not a defense that she didn't do it. Given that was the defense, I'd have to say it was proper to overturn the conviction which carries an implicit finding of sanity. Dietz's testimony appears to have gone right to the heart of proving Yates as sane and had his statements concerning the Law and Order TV show been true, it would have been powerful evidence that she had the presence of mind to calculate and plan her crime. That would have been pretty convincing to a jury of her sanity I'd think. Given that such compelling evidence of sanity turned out to be fabricated it left the appeals court with no other choice than to vacate the verdict. However, I assume (always dangerous I know) that other evidence was presented to buttress the prosecution's case and that evidence will be introduced again in a new trial. It might be a more difficult case for the prosecution this time around, but in the end, I think the same verdict will come down.

Without seeing the transcript of the trial, I don't know how important it was if she watched a TV show or not. I have a hard time believing it would have had any influence on her killing her children.

Because this was somewhat trivial component in convicting her, I don't think it will make any difference. She'll be found guilty again.

I do feel from the little I have read about the trial, she is mentally ill and not a criminal.

If retried, do you think Andrea Yates will be convicted again in the drowning murders of her children?

I certainly hope so. To me, this is one of the most heinous crimes in the past decade. The fact that she chased down her 5 year old (who saw what she did to the other children) and subsequently drowned him boils my blood.

Frankly, I could care less what her motivation was or whether she was sane or not (this, of course, would get me excluded from most juries): her conduct is inexcusable. She deserves death, if anyone does.

I am hopeful that a future Texas jury will convict her again.

Would you have overturned the conviction based on the inaccuracy of Dietz's testimony - given the fact that Yates admits to the murders?

From a legal standpoint, I can see why the appeals court did what it did. The actions of the doctor certainly had an impact on the jury and it is not up to the appellate court to judge how much of an impact it had on the original jury. The only fair thing to do is to give her a new trial.

If retried, do you think Andrea Yates will be convicted again in the drowning murders of her children?

I do think Yates will be retried and convicted. While I agree Amlord that “this is one of the most heinous crimes in the past decade.” I don’t think she should have been convicted of capital murder in the first place. Yates had a long history of mental illness, that including two suicide attempts. This does not mean that I think she should be walking the streets. Perhaps we need to come up with some options other than prison or execution for people who function well while taking prescribed medications, but are a danger to themselves and others when they quit. I think confining her to a state mental facility for life would be more appropriate. Unfortunately, people who are stabilized by medications are deemed ready to resume their place in society. I think this is a mistake. Andrea Yates' symptoms were treated, but she and others caught in this “web” are never cured. This catch 22 has burned us in the past and will undoubtedly do so in the future. Perhaps the Texas legislature could do something constructive for a change and explore some alternatives in its session that starts January 16. Perhaps this decision will spur them into actually confronting a problem.



Yates, like others, had plenty of help getting to the point of the murders. One was evangelist Michael Woroniecki, (I think Wrong-iecki is more appropriate) who diagnosed her “spiritual” condition by correspondence, accusing her in a series of letters of being a wicked Jezebel among other things. The problem is that someone with Yates' psychological make-up cannot evaluate clowns like Woroniecki to determine what might be true and what quite obviously is false. Religion does not automatically equal good and people like Woroniecki are rarely interested in anyone's well being but their own.



Under Woroniecki’s tutelage, the Yates moved into squalid living conditions.

http://crime.about.com/od/current/p/andreayates.htm

Court TV had an hour long program on Yates last night. Their page links to quite a bit of information on the Yates case.

http://www.courttv.com/home_news/index.html

Would you have overturned the conviction based on the inaccuracy of Dietz's testimony - given the fact that Yates admits to the murders?

Of course, since the testimony of psychiatrist, Dr. Park Dietz, offset that of defense psychiatrists.

Questions for Debate:



A lot of times, this case has been presented as if the prosectution and defense agreed on every point, which is erroneous. While they did agree that she was insane, the false testimony convinced the jurors that she knew what she was doing inspite of her illness.


-CNN article

The court made the right decision on this, though talk radio hosts and others gloss over the importance of judicial integrity being maintained.