Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Andrea Yates' Lawyer Says She Was Psychotic When She Drowned Five Children

Aired February 19, 2002 - 09:05   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Up front this morning: murder, or madness? Andrea Yates' lawyer says she was psychotic when she drowned her five children in a bathtub. But prosecutors say there was evidence of planning, not psychosis, and they want the death penalty. Testimony continues this morning in Yates' capital murder trial in Houston.

And CNN's Ed Lavandera joins us from outside the Harris County courthouse.

Good morning, Ed.

ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Jack.

One of the side issues playing out here at the courtroom is the Russell Yates and his family expressing some frustration with the court in determining another not being allowed to hear testimony. Although the law says that witnesses aren't allowed to hear testimony, Russell Yates testimony say they are victims in this case and they should be allowed inside to be able to listen to the testimony. We'll she how that plays out throughout the day.

As the first witnesses start taking the stand in this case, what is happening is two things at the same time. There are three officers -- there's the third officer on the witness stand -- resume on the witness stand this morning. Two officers have already testified. They've described the scene, what they came across when they first arrived, and obviously the emotional scene, obviously tugging at heart strings of the jury in this case. The officers describing how four of the children were laid out on the bed side by side and that the fifth child was found face down in the bathtub with the -- they described the way pajamas looked, and they also described that there was cold cereal on the kitchen table. And also pointing out that Andrea Yates said she had waited until Russell Yates had left for work, because if he had been around, he would have stopped her.

But also at the same time making sure to point out to the jury what she was like, what here emotional state was like at the time. The officers describe her as answering all the questions, coherent, saying that she looked at them in the eyes the prosecution, saying that she stood there emotionless.

At one point, Russell Yates was behind the house, because he wasn't allowed in to see the scene. At one point, he was yelling through a window or through a back door at Andrea Yates, trying to get attention, yelling for her, and Andrea Yates never acknowledged that he was there. The defense is arguing that Andrea Yates and that the people who have treated her since her illnesses started in 1999 say that she was one of the most mentally ill people they had ever come across. In the words of defense attorney, "She was off the charts."

Jack, back to you.

CAFFERTY: Ed Lavandera live in Houston, where the Yates' trial is going into day two today.

Joining us to talk about some of the strategy that we saw, particularly during yesterday's opening arguments, and some of the strategy we're likely to see as the case moves forward, from Washington, former federal prosecutor Cynthia Alskne.

Cynthia, it's nice to have you with us.

CYNTHIA ALSKNE, FMR. FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Good morning.

CAFFERTY: You watched the opening arguments yesterday. Who won round one, and give me a thumbnail of each side as they move into the testimony phase of the trial.

ALSKNE: Well, the thumbnail strategy for each side is pretty simple. The prosecution wants to focus on the black and white, and the logic of what happened, and the defense wants to focus on the emotion. The prosecution's opening was very methodical and chronological. It consisted mostly of her statements that demonstrates that she knew what she was doing, that she planned it the night before, that she waited for her husband to leave, that she hurried and got the murders done before her mother-in-law arrived, that she called the police, which would also be evidence of her understanding the difference between right and wrong, and that she told the police that she needed to be punished, and that was the strength of the prosecution case.

It has some weakness, though, in that the prosecutor really didn't deal with the psychiatric testimony. He was a bit dismissive, and I think this could turn out to be a problem for him.

CAFFERTY: I was reading one of the New York columnist this morning who apparently was in the courtroom yesterday, or at least watched the opening arguments, and they made mention of the fact that the defense lawyers for Miss Yates didn't talk about the murder of these children, but rather referred to her "interrupting their lives." That's in quotation marks. And they didn't use the word "murder" or "killing," they used the word "incident," and the opinion of the columnist is they're trying to obviously engender some sympathy for Miss Yates. But the prosecution -- and I have to acknowledge that she has a history of mental illness -- how can they do that and not buy the defense argument that is was mental illness that caused this to happen in the first place?

ALSKNE: Well, the prosecutor said she clearly is suffering some form of mental illness, and there's no question about that. She's been hospitalized on and off, catatonic, suicide attempts, so there's some major problems. The prosecution did that. My criticism is they didn't deal enough with her mental health issues, and they spent a little bit too much time just saying that's the defenses' problem.

You know, insanity law has changed very much in this country since President Reagan was shot. And it used to be that the prosecution bore the burden of proof on all issues. Now, once the defendant tries to get off not guilty by reason of insanity, they bear the burden of proving their own insanity. And so the prosecution just sort of shoved that on them, that's their problem, as if that's enough and it really isn't enough. I think it may turn out to be a problem for them.

CAFFERTY: When you say it's not enough, though, what do you mean? What else does the prosecution have to do?

ALSKNE: The prosecution must affirmatively convince -- whether or not we talk about the different burden shifting in the law, ultimately, the jury makes a gut check. Do we think this women knew the difference between right and wrong? And the prosecution has to take on that burden, even though they don't have it legally. And the prosecution has to be able to deal with her psychiatric testimony, and say that even though she had all these psychiatric problems, she knew right from wrong, and I think they fluffed it off a little bit too much yesterday.

On the other hand, the defense had strengths and weaknesses, too, so that were fair to both sides. The strength of defense case is clearly, that this woman had a long history, and this isn't some made up sanity defense. She is mentally ill. The question is, even though she's mentally ill, is she so mentally ill she's not responsible for her behavior.

The defense did not deal straightforwardly enough I think with the murders. At one point, the defense attorney went through her mental history and then he just referred to the murders as "the inevitable resulted." Well, that's not enough of taking responsibility, and the jury won't like that.

CAFFERTY: Cynthia, we're going to have to stop it here, but I will look forward to some more of these conversations with you as this trial moves forward. You bring an interesting perspective as a former prosecutor, and I look forward to having some more chats with you as we look down the road on this thing.

ALSKNE: Thank you very much.

CAFFERTY: All right, Cynthia Alskne, from Washington D.C.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com