Page 1 of 2
TEXAS APPEALS COURT OVERTURNS ANDREA YATES MURDER CONVICTION
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 9:27 am
by sunny
TEXAS APPEALS COURT OVERTURNS CAPITAL MURDER CONVICTION AGAINST ANDREA YATES; NEW TRIAL ORDERED IN 2001 DROWNINGS OF HER CHILDREN
foxnews breaking email alert
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 9:28 am
by alicia-w
what the....
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 9:53 am
by alicia-w
they can reverse a murder conviction, but they cant reverse the deaths of those children. this just makes me want to hurl.
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 9:55 am
by JenBayles
Oh good God..... here we go again. I can't tell you what a horror of a trial that was for everyone here in the Houston area. The murders were so awful and hard to comprehend and then that jerk of a husband had to go spouting off on every TV show he could get on. I remember people at the office saying the husband should be charged. They didn't appreciate my reminding them that it's not against the law to be an a$$hole. Mr. Yates broke no law - his wife did. Anyway, I am so NOT looking forward to seeing this particular pandora's box reopened. Those poor babies....
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 9:57 am
by Brent
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 9:59 am
by GalvestonDuck
Apparently, Dr. Dietz claimed that Yates saw an episode of "Law & Order" where a woman drowned her kids in the bathtub and then was found not guilty by reason of insanity. However, there was no such episode at the time. Because of his false testimony, the Court has ruled to overturn her conviction.
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:01 am
by alicia-w
What a crock of ......
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:02 am
by Brent
She's getting a new trial... Oh how peachy.
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:09 am
by Derek Ortt
what are the grounds for a new trial? If there was false testimony from the prosecution, then at the very least a new trial is required, if not a purjury trial for the prosecution witness who lied.
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:11 am
by Josephine96
Now wait a minute.. I know she was found guilty.. But I thought you weren't allowed to be tried 2x for the same crime..
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:12 am
by alicia-w
didnt see anything about a new trial. but what about double jeopardy? thought you couldnt be tried twice for the same crime...
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:13 am
by GalvestonDuck
Josephine96 wrote:Now wait a minute.. I know she was found guilty.. But I thought you weren't allowed to be tried 2x for the same crime..
You can be tried twice...you just can't be convicted and serve twice. Isn't that how it goes?
Since the first decision has been overturned, it's no longer an official "conviction."
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:13 am
by Brent
Josephine96 wrote:Now wait a minute.. I know she was found guilty.. But I thought you weren't allowed to be tried 2x for the same crime..
Click2Houston article wrote:Yates' appeal, presented to the panel in December, cited 19 errors from her 2002 trial. Her attorneys said she deserved a new trial because the state's expert witness falsely testified and Texas' insanity standard is unconstitutional.
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:14 am
by alicia-w
aha, "deserving" a new trial and actually getting one are two separate things.
i bet she walks.
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:15 am
by Brent
alicia-w wrote:didnt see anything about a new trial. but what about double jeopardy? thought you couldnt be tried twice for the same crime...
I'm not either... MSNBC TV said it though. I checked both msnbc.com and cnn.com and there was no mention.
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:16 am
by GalvestonDuck
And she can't be tried for the same "crime" under a different charge. For example, if she was acquited of murder, she couldn't then be charged with manslaughter and tried again. The "act" is the crime and she can't be tried a second time once a true standing verdict has already been reached, be it acquital or conviction.
But for now, there is no verdict since the original was overturned. There has to be one or the other.
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:18 am
by GalvestonDuck
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/010605 ... yates.html
The court ruling returns the case back to the trial court for a new trial.
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:19 am
by alicia-w
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/02.html
Here's a legal reference for the double jeopardy thing.
I think it might apply here. It's not like there was a mistrial. I thought there had to be new evidence for a new trial.
Smart lawyers but dumb idea. She killed those children. She knows she did it. She SAID she did it. and now she's gonna walk.
Major goosebumps here.
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:21 am
by vbhoutex
JenBayles wrote:Oh good God..... here we go again. I can't tell you what a horror of a trial that was for everyone here in the Houston area. The murders were so awful and hard to comprehend and then that jerk of a husband had to go spouting off on every TV show he could get on. I remember people at the office saying the husband should be charged. They didn't appreciate my reminding them that it's not against the law to be an a$$hole. Mr. Yates broke no law - his wife did. Anyway, I am so NOT looking forward to seeing this particular pandora's box reopened. Those poor babies....
AMEN!!!!!
AND THE REASON FOR OVERTURNING IT IS BS TOO IMO!!!
Oh, don't even get me started on the legalities and reality!!!AAARRRGGGHHH!!!!!
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:22 am
by JenBayles
alicia-w wrote:didnt see anything about a new trial. but what about double jeopardy? thought you couldnt be tried twice for the same crime...
It was for just this reason that the DA did not charge her with the murder of all the children in the first trial. I believe 2 or 3 were held back in case just something like this happened.
