Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

Former Federal Prosecutor Discusses Yates Trial

Aired March 12, 2002 - 13:02   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.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: The closely-watched trial of a Texas mother who drowned her five children is now in its final stages. Closing arguments -- you saw them live here on CNN. Back to the Andrea Yates case and Gary Tuchman, who is now outside the courtroom, joining us live with an update.

Gary, good afternoon.

GARY TUCHMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Bill, good afternoon to you.

The prosecution took just a little over an hour with its closing arguments, the defense just under an hour. The jury is now at lunch. In about one hour, the jury -- the eight women and four men on the jury -- will begin its deliberations in the case of Andrea Yates: Is she guilty of capital murder?

I've been covering trials for 20 years. This has been one of the most painful to sit through and listen to the details. You have got a small taste of that if you listen to the closing arguments.

You haven't been able to listen to much of the case because the judge ruled that cameras would only be allowed in for the opening statements and the closing arguments. There was a testimony from the witnesses that was very hard to hear.

All sides acknowledge that these children, the five children of Andrea and Russell Yates, suffered greatly, ranging from 7-year-old Noah to 6-month-old Mary. They suffered terribly. Experts say it took them three to six minutes to die after their mother drowned them.

But that's where it all differs. The defense says that Andrea Yates did not know right from wrong. Under Texas insanity law, if you don't know right from wrong, the jury should find you not guilty by reason of insanity. It says that Andrea Yates believed that her children would spend eternity in hell if she didn't kill them. She believed she had the devil in her. And the defense said that's what she had to do.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WENDELL ODOM, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: What, in essence, you are asked to decide, the state's position is, Well, she had some general concept of wrong and sin; therefore, you have to find her guilty. What the defense tells you is that all although she may be able to perceive that others might think that her conduct is wrong, and that although may have some general concept that you're not supposed to kill children, did she know that her conduct was wrong when she was doing what she thought was the only thing in the world that could save her children from hellfire and damnation. And that's your decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TUCHMAN: For the most part, the prosecution believes that she did have mental problems, but they say she knew very well this was illegal, she knew it was wrong in the eyes of God and the eyes of society. They say it was a cold, calculated, deceptive plot, and they say may have done this to get revenge from her controlling husband.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAYLYNN WILLIFORD, PROSECUTOR: Andrea Yates took back control over her life that day. She wasn't disorganized in her thoughts. She wasn't doing this to save the children. She wasn't doing this because she felt what a cruel dilemma for a mother. She wasn't doing this except for a motivation that only she knows.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TUCHMAN: With us now is my colleague Ed Lavandera. He's our Dallas bureau chief. He's been covering the story since June 20, 2001, when this all happened.

You were sitting in court during the closing arguments close to Russell Yates. Russell Yates, we should tell everyone, hasn't been allowed in the court, because he's a witness. He wasn't allowed in during testimony. Now he is allowed in. What was his reaction to all this?

ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: He was sitting about 5 feet away from me, across the aisle from the fifth row. And his reaction afterwards -- we spoke with him as we were walking out of the courtroom -- he said that anyone who listened to the prosecutors wrapup their closing arguments should be -- and anyone who has mental illness in this country should be -- offended by what they heard.

He also went on to say that Joe Owmby, the prosecutor in this case, has no idea -- and these are his words -- "has no idea what mental illness is all about."

Throughout the testimony in the prosecution's version of events -- especially when talking about their family situation: living in a bus, the homeschooling situation -- Russell Yates and the rest of his family, who sat in the same row, often shaking their heads in disbelief as to, in their opinion, saying that the prosecutors didn't even get their own facts straight in this case.

TUCHMAN: He couldn't see by watching on TV, but also Andrea Yates's mother was in the gallery. She has cried frequently during this trial. What was her reaction to agonizing listening to these details? LAVANDERA: Her side of the family was sitting on the opposite side of the courtroom, along with two of Andrea Yates's brothers. I looked over on several occasions, and there wasn't a whole lot of emotion for them. It was hard to see Karen Kennedy's face, Andrea Yates's mother, but that's been kind of the situation for her over the course of the last month. It's a woman who is elderly, who lost her husband in March of last year, so you might imagine that this poor woman has been through a very long and agonizing year for her.

TUCHMAN: Ed Lavandera, thank you very much.

If this woman, Andrea Yates, is found guilty of capital murder, there will then be a sentencing phase in this trial. The jury could decide to vote to give her the death penalty. On the other hand, the jury could decide that she gets life in prison with the possibility of parole after 40 years. However, if the jury comes back with a verdict that she's not guilty by reason of insanity, then Andrea Yates would go to a mental hospital for an undetermined amount of time.

Bill, back to you.

HEMMER: Gary, thank you. Gary Tuchman, Ed Lavandera, both down there in Houston, Texas.

Cynthia Alksne is with us. She knows a whole lot about closing arguments. A former federal prosecutor and frequent CNN analyst with us again live in Washington.

Cynthia, good afternoon.

Just heard you 30 minutes ago saying the prosecution did not do a good job in this case. Sum it up for us. How so, as a former prosecutor yourself?

CYNTHIA ALKSNE, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I think in just analyzing the case as a whole, beginning with opening statements, the prosecution, until closing statements, the prosecution never gave a coherent theory on how she deliberately and deceptively killed the children. When the jury was hearing the evidence as it came out from the witnesses, they never fully understood the way the prosecution viewed the case. And you can't wait until closing argument to do that. And in this case, it wasn't even just closing argument, it was rebuttal.

HEMMER: As a legal novice, is there a strategy behind that somewhere or not?

ALKSNE: Some people believe the last thing that you hear is what you actually believe, and some people believe the first thing you hear. So there is a tension in that argument. It is my feeling, because I've tried a lot of cases, that you need to do it both times, you need to open with your theory, and the prosecution never did this.

HEMMER: On the other side, you said the defense took control completely from this trial. I think in your words, from the very beginning. Is that because the prosecution was not aggressive or not coherent, or is that because the defense did a better job, in your estimation?

ALKSNE: I think it's both. Nature of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) is a vacuum, and it's also because the defense was so strong early on explaining her illness and downward spiral, not only with psychiatrist testimony -- which is always suspect with juries because they always think somebody is trying to get off -- but also with a heavy factual testimony. These friends of hers that came in and talked about her staring into space, scratching her head, and being incapable of eating and caring for herself and cleaning herself. The defense effectively dealt with both aspects that they needed to, so they were able to build to their crescendo today, which really was if this women is not crazy, nobody is.

HEMMER: Let's talk about some of the evidence. Ultimately, the jury has to decide whether she was truly insane at the time of these killings, going back to June of last year -- apparently audio and videotape saying Andrea Yates confesses, and saying, in her words, "It is wrong." Another tape, a piece of evidence, where she says it was -- quote -- a bad choice, according to Andrea Yates with the prosecutors argue there at the end about immediately calling police right after the children were drowned. Does this all add up to tell jurors that possibly she did know right from wrong at that time?

ALKSNE: You know, the interesting thing about the strength of the female prosecutor's argument is she very effectively dealt with all those little facts, which would suggest that Yates did know in the coldest and barest way that this was wrong. The planning, the deception, waiting for her husband, the deception of the children during the murders themselves -- the locking of the doors -- and the manner in which she killed them and then called the police. She effectively did that. The problem is by the time the jury hears all this in a coherent manner, they've had 3 1/2 weeks of also hearing this women is crazy as a loon. So it is hard to believe on the very last day, the jury can be convinced.

HEMMER: Were you struck at all by the tone in closing arguments, prosecution being somewhat strident at times and defense attorneys being somewhat coddling and soft in their tones?

ALKSNE: I thought the defense attorneys and the female prosecutor had a perfect tone for the arguments that they needed to make. They were -- both the defense attorneys and the female prosecutor -- were very skilled in the manner in which they spoke to the jury and the use of common sense and fact in weaving the case together.

HEMMER: I'm assuming final instructions before deliberations begin -- is that right?

ALKSNE: No, I think they've had it. The judge is going to send them back. They will have to elect a foreperson, and then they will ask for the exhibits. It's going to be a long time before we have a verdict in this case. There are 300 exhibits, a lot of psychiatric reports and testimony, and they are going to take some time to search through all that before any verdict.

HEMMER: I'm certain we will talk again between now and then. Cynthia, thanks. Cynthia Alksne, live in Washington with us today.

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