Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Saturday Morning News
Is Life in Prison a Just Sentence for Yates?
Aired March 16, 2002 - 08:20 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.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: All right, it's time now for our legal roundtable. Excuse me while I get the e-mails ready.
Criminal defense attorney and former state prosecutor Pam Hayes joining us once again from New York. Always good to see you, Pam.
PAM HAYES, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good to be here.
O'BRIEN: And also we have our CNN legal analyst, Cynthia Alksne, joining us from Washington.
CYNTHIA ALKSNE, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Good morning.
O'BRIEN: She's a former federal prosecutor. We won't hold that against her. No, just kidding. We obviously have a lot of legal issues to discuss.
Generally, you are concerned this morning, you the viewers, that is, with Andrea Yates. A couple of Andersen-Enron questions. We may try to get to those.
And once again, if you'd like to give us a phone call, now is the time to do that. We don't have the budget for a toll-free number. We apologize for that. But 404-221-1855 is the number. We promise we'll pick up the phone fairly quickly and you won't hold too long. We invite you to call if you like.
Let's get to the first e-mail, shall we, ladies?
Bryan Anderson has this for us: "Andrea Yates was on medication during the trial. I'm wondering if she was so drugged up as to not be able to truly understand what was being presented and to respond appropriately with emotion. Did the jurors understand that?"
Pam, let's start with you.
HAYES: Well, I think it's true that she didn't really understand what was going on because of her medication. But she understood sufficiently enough to participate in the trial.
I don't think that was the real point for the jurors to understand. I think the point was that this woman is sick and just because she had a psychotic episode where she could do other things other than, unfortunately, kill her children and dial 911, they didn't put the big picture together.
You know, I really -- this is one case where I have a definite opinion. You know, a disservice was done. This woman is mentally ill. She was insane at the time of the act. And she should be in an institution for the criminally insane, never to leave again.
O'BRIEN: Yes, I'll tell you what, let's get a phone call in here as we go to Cynthia, because it relates very much to what Pam just said. Peter is in New York. Good morning, Peter. Your question or comment.
CALLER: Yes, hi. Good morning. I'm actually a forensic psychiatrist in Manhattan and I've been following pretty closely this trial. And I was wondering what in the world was the legal definition of insanity, given the fact that, at least in my opinion, Andrea Yates lacked the knowledge of the nature or wrongfulness of these terrible acts when she killed her children?
O'BRIEN: Cynthia? Thank you, Peter. Good question. We appreciate your call.
Cynthia?
ALKSNE: The legal definition was whether or not she knew her actions were wrong. The nature and quality of the acts that you mention, that's an old definition of insanity. It's an insanity definition that was thrown out in Texas after the Hinckley shootings. And so now it really came down to whether or not she knew her actions were wrong.
And the jury obviously determined that because she had some form of a planning, she had thought about this, these murders for a couple of years, she had looked at different options -- remember, since you followed the trial, you may remember that she thought about using a knife and decided it was too bloody.
Then on the night before she decided to go ahead and do the drownings, she waited for her husband to leave. She hurried and got the drownings done before her mother-in-law came and she tricked the children in the course of the drownings by locking the house so they couldn't escape and then hiding each of the children under the bed until the next one had been murdered.
That the jury determined she knew her act -- and then, of course, the call to 911. The jury determined she knew her actions were wrong.
However, you know, there's obviously a huge debate about that, because of the limited nature of the definition and because she's obviously crazy as a loon. But, so they decided.
O'BRIEN: Yes, all right.
Let's go, and more on this vein.
Eleanor O'Hara in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia has this: "As a mother, I can't ever imagine killing my children. I realize that five children met a horrible death at the hands of their mother. But was it really their mother or a very mentally ill stranger?"
And I just want to keep going with this because this is sort of on the same vein: "I am relieved that Andrea Yates didn't get a death sentence. However, she doesn't belong in prison either. She's a very sick person and belongs in the criminal facility of a psychiatric hospital. Our laws governing the insanity defense need to be changed." That from Ray Brandell.
Pam, what laws need to be changed?
HAYES: Well, in Texas they have a very narrow definition and it's not expanded as in some jurisdictions where they use the model penal code definition or the irresistible impulse, where a person can't confirm their behavior to the norms of society.
I think in this case that the definition needs to be expanded. But what I really feel happened in this case was reverse jury nullification. I think they understand that the woman was crazy but they weren't willing to accept the testimony of numerous experts who basically didn't have an axe to grind, who came in and said this woman is sick.
I think that it was such an emotional situation for the jurors that they never were able to get over the fact that five little babies were killed by this woman and they just didn't follow the law as they should have. Because if they had believed the experts, the experts said she didn't know the difference between right and wrong at the time of her act. So, you know, if they believed what the experts said, you know, you have to wonder whether it was just jury nullification.
O'BRIEN: All right, this next phone call actually relates to that, and we'll send it over to Cynthia. Jean is in Wisconsin. Good morning, Jean.
CALLER: Good morning, sir.
O'BRIEN: Your question, please?
CALLER: Oh, my question is what is going to take place with this doctor that took this lady off of her medication? Didn't he know that something could happen to this girl?
ALKSNE: That's an interesting question. There was a doctor who saw Andrea Yates several days before or several weeks and then again several days before the murders. He took her off the Haldol and then after the family said, you know, she's not doing that well, she needs more medication, said he didn't think she needed it.
You can, you know, there's a lot a lot of things you can be sure about in the law, but let me tell you one thing you're sure about, that doctor is getting sued. And the family members talked about it yesterday and there will be more litigation about whether or not she should have been taken off that Haldol.
O'BRIEN: All right, we're going to take a quick break here, pay a little rent. We have a lot more e-mails. We hope some more questions on the phones. That phone number once again, 404-221-1855. We're talking mostly about Andrea Yates and that trial. If you have any other legal questions for us, feel free to send them along. After all, we have put these people on retainer this morning. We've got some billable hours here. Take advantage of them. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O'BRIEN: We're back. It's legal roundtable time. The ad hoc law firm of Hayes and Alksne here to take your questions. Maybe we should start a partnership right here. Who knows? What do you think?
HAYES: That sounds good.
ALKSNE: Yes.
O'BRIEN: All right, good. I'll be the business manager. How does that sound?
HAYES: Yes.
O'BRIEN: Let's go to, we have a phone call. Sally is in Pennsylvania, a good question for us. Sally, go ahead.
SALLY: Is there such a considerable defense or I guess is the question is is there such a thing as guilty but insane and if not, is that something we should consider?
O'BRIEN: Great question. Pam, go for it.
HAYES: I didn't hear her. I didn't hear the question.
O'BRIEN: Oh, I'm sorry. Pam, the question is is there such a thing as guilty and yet insane? In other words, you did something wrong but you're crazy as a loon, to quote your partner.
HAYES: Well, OK. That's interesting. Yes. That is a legal definition where in some states such, I think in Delaware they have that particular definition where they feel the person is guilty and what they do is they send them to a mental institution until they are defined as sane and then they go ahead and serve their prison term. And we saw that situation in the Dupont murder case where the individual had murdered a wrestler, a world champion wrestler.
I don't basically understand that definition because if you are truly insane, as the law defines you as insane, you are not guilty because you don't have the intent that is required by the statute to, you know, do something wrong.
O'BRIEN: Yes, it sounds like if...
HAYES: But you do have it.
O'BRIEN: Cynthia, it sounds like a contradiction in terms.
ALKSNE: Well, it is a contradiction... O'BRIEN: Insanity implies lack of guilt, right?
ALKSNE: On the other hand, it sort of fits neatly with what we have here. I mean this woman is guilty but insane. And so there is a movement within certain areas of the law to expand the guilty but insane option. It is not available in Texas and it won't be available any time soon.
O'BRIEN: All right, let's go back to the e-mail, shall we? A couple of e-mails focusing on Russell Yates.
"Why has the husband gotten off scott-free when he knew she was sick and left those kids in her care? He could have prevented that from happening. He is not a stupid man. He could have done a lot more than what he did. He could have brought in more help for his wife, helping with the care of the kids. He left those kids in danger knowing his wife had tried to kill herself in the past. I think he's just as responsible." That from Sherry Renner.
And one similar one: "I'd like to know why the law and the media does not hold Russell Yates to some standard of responsibility or accountability. Why, instead of allowing the man to martyr himself, hasn't anyone pointed out his all but obscene use of his children's death to make himself a center of attention and to raise money for his wife? And more importantly, why hasn't he been charged with neglect or abuse for leaving his children in the care of someone as he, himself, described as almost catatonic?" That from Deb Vaughn.
Pam, lots there. But basically let's just talk about, is there any legal case there against Russell Yates?
HAYES: There might be a legal case against Russell Yates for abuse or neglect. It's an abuse-neglect proceeding that in New York we have in family court because, you know, he did know that his wife had a condition. I don't think he ever knew that his wife would harm their children; and because he didn't know that, you really can't connect him to a homicide or even a, you know, a manslaughter.
What you have to do is look at his conduct and look at the laws in Texas and say, did he do anything to promote this or, you know, did he have a responsibility not to let this happen?
You have a doctor who's saying she's OK, we need to take her off her medication. So he's under the impression that, you know, maybe she's getting better.
But, you know, if you wanted to stretch it, I think you could charge him with a form of neglect if you wanted to. But I really think it's stretching it and that's not where we need to go on this case. We really need to be dealing with the fact that everybody knows we have an insane person who's been sentenced to prison, which isn't going to do her any good.
O'BRIEN: Cynthia, final words?
ALKSNE: I don't think there's any case against him. There was no evidence that she was ever going to harm the children. The only issue was whether or not she was going to harm herself. He did make an effort to get her medical care, although it wasn't any good. And he and his mother tag teamed it and so most of the time those children were never left alone. There was only one hour on this day. On the day he left she was up and around and feeding the children cereal and so there wasn't an indication that she was a threat to the children.
O'BRIEN: Pam Hayes and Cynthia Alksne, Esquires? Would you be esquires? No.
HAYES: Yes, we are esquires.
O'BRIEN: It was very good to have you with us. Thank you for your insights. We appreciate you taking these questions on a very difficult subject and we look forward to seeing you again in the future on CNN SATURDAY MORNING.
HAYES: OK. Bye-bye.
ALKSNE: Great.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
