Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

Andrea Yates Case: Testimony Concludes in Penalty Phase

Aired March 15, 2002 - 13:01   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: Once again, the legal arguments now over and the jury will have to decide if Andrea Yates should die or spend the rest of her life in prison for drowning her children. Back to the courthouse and Ed Lavandera again in Houston, Texas -- Ed.

ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Bill. A couple of observations. Now that the jury is at lunchtime and will return here in an hour to begin deliberations in the punishment phase of the Andrea Yates capital murder trial, the first question that they will have to answer is whether or not Andrea Yates is a future threat to society. Now, if 10 people on the jury say that she is no longer a threat, that means she is automatically convicted to life in prison. And if they do answer yes to that question, they move on to the second question as to whether or not there are any mitigating circumstances that should prevent Andrea Yates from being put to death. And if that question is answered no, then she would be sentenced to death. If they answered yes, again, Andrea Yates would be sentenced to life in prison.

Now, a couple of observations from the prosecution's standpoint. As we reported, the prosecution didn't present any evidence and didn't bring any more witnesses to the stand over the course of the last day and a half as testimony was presented in the punishment phase. And a lot of people analyzing why they did that. The prosecution won't come out and say exactly why, but they just say that the evidence that they presented during the guilt phase is enough to -- is what they wanted to present and they'll let the jury make the determination based on that testimony.

One thing I want to point out, if you've listened to the closing arguments over the last hour or so, prosecutors mentioned five times that they told the jury that it's your decision. We leave it up to you, that we will accept whatever you did. And the very last line, from Joe Owmby, the prosecutor, he said you did the right thing in determining guilt, and we know you will do the right thing again, but not specifying whether or not that should be the death penalty or life in prison. And a lot of analysts and a lot of legal experts here in Houston suggesting that that is exactly what the prosecution wants to happen. They just want to let the jury decide what will happen in this case and that they're comfortable with whatever decision they bring forward, perhaps later on this afternoon.

HEMMER: Ed, back up just a little bit. You say if 10 jurors decide on each count? Why 10? LAVANDERA: Yes, but that's only on the first question. For the -- for a death penalty to be issued in the case, it has to be unanimous. If it reaches where it's just 10 people who say that -- that is -- excuse me -- that if it's 10 people who say that she's no longer a threat, the court rules that that is enough and that's all that is needed in this case just to ensure that Andrea Yates is sent to prison for life.

HEMMER: All right. Clarification well noted. Ed, thank you. Ed Lavandera in Houston.

Let's bring in a former federal prosecutor once again. Cynthia Alksne back with us, again live in Washington. And going back to a point that you were making about 30 minutes ago, the question about this law and order -- this "Law & Order" show that was brought up here. Apparently earlier in the trial, referred to again by the defense attorneys. Is this the kind of stuff that makes up for a mistrial or not?

CYNTHIA ALKSNE, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: No, not really. It's more like a hail mary pass that didn't work. They have to do something. They have to try. They're trying to save this woman's life. But it is unlikely that any case would be overturned on this or that they would receive a mistrial simply because these witnesses -- these jurors had, you know, almost a month of testimony and this -- we're talking about several minutes. And the government expert really didn't rely on this "Law & Order" He sort of threw it out and said maybe she saw it. He didn't even affirmatively say she saw it and this is how she learned. And there wasn't a lot of reliance on this testimony.

There wouldn't be any kind of a mistrial or overturning on appeal in my judgment unless the testimony actually affected the outcome of the trial. And I don't think it really did.

HEMMER: And, Cynthia, on this question about prosecutors saying whether it was a mitigating or aggravating. We heard it many times. For jurors interpreting the law in Texas, what must they determine between these two terms to ultimately decide the fate of Andrea Yates?

ALKSNE: Well, it's interesting. The case law actually says jurors understand what most of these terms in the death penalty statutes mean. And they mean their regular and ordinary meaning. There is actually a list of things that could be possibly mitigating. I have it, like on a threat to society, the facts and circumstances in the -- this actual case. The calculated nature of the murders, the forthright and deliberation of the crimes, prior criminal record, the defendant's age and personal circumstances, and these -- psychiatric testimony, those types of things can come into play on whether or not there is a mitigating circumstance.

HEMMER: All right. Cynthia, thank you.

ALKSNE: And throughout society.

HEMMER: OK. Cynthia Alksne again taking us through the legal complexities. Thanks, again.

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