Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports

Yates' Verdict

Aired March 12, 2002 - 19:00   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.
WOLF BLITZER, ANCHOR: Good evening. I'm Wolf Blitzer reporting tonight from Washington. Welcome to our special coverage of the Andrea Yates verdict. It took the 12 members of the jury only three hour and 40 minutes to reach their decision -- guilty of capital murder. The 37-year-old mother had drowned her five children last June. Her lawyers argued she was insane and should be found not guilty, but the eight women and four men on the jury didn't buy that. Here's Judge Belinda Hill reading the jury's decision.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BELINDA HILL, JUDGE: Mrs. Yates, please stand. In cause #880- 205, the state of Texas versus Andrea P. Yates. We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of capital murder as charged in the indictment. Signed by the foreperson.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: The verdict came a little bit more than an hour ago. CNN's Ed Lavandera standing by live outside the courthouse with the latest including reaction -- Ed.

ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, as you might imagine a very difficult time for the Yates family and the Kennedy family, Andrea Yates' mother's side of the family. When the verdict was read I was sitting across the aisle from Russell Yates in the fifth row. As soon as the verdict was read his head fell into his hands and he said, oh, my God. He just sat there for the rest of the time we were in court with his eyes closed just staring at the ground as he soaked in everything that had just happened.

And as the jury was escorted out of the court room, everyone stood up, Russell Yates did not stand up. And as he got up to leave the courtroom, he just mouthed to himself, unbelievable. And the sense in the court room was very tense, very emotional moment when the jury walked into the courtroom coming out of the jury room. As they each filed into the jury box none of the jurors looked over at Andrea Yates.

There were no visible signs of emotion from this jury that we could tell from sitting in the fifth row. Of course, defense attorneys expressing a lot of shock that this jury came to this verdict so quickly only three and a half hours of testimony. But they do point and several observers that we have had a chance to speak with here in the last hour say that the insanity law in Texas is just a tough law to fight and to put up an insanity defense is very tough.

As you look at the pictures and the images of the five children, that is what weighs heavily on the jurors' minds when they deliberate. These cases, the law states in Texas that if someone knows right from wrong, and that's the question, whether or not Andrea Yates knew right from wrong when she drowned her five children and that question has been answered now by this jury of eight women and four men that she knew exactly what she was doing. And quite honestly a lot of that evidence came from Andrea Yates' own mouth. That she said on several occasions, that she confessed to police. She called 911. And perhaps that was enough to convince this jury. Although we haven't heard from them.

Testimony and defense attorneys expressing a lot of shock just a short time ago with us.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WENDELL ODOM, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I'm not happy. That's the verdict. Now we go to the next stage.

QUESTION: Was your client prepared for this?

ODOM: Yes. yes.

QUESTION: How do you get prepared for something like this?

ODOM: You take a deep breath and you think about the thoughts you thought about going into it and you start all over again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE PARNHAM, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It seems to me that we're still back in the days of the Salem witchcraft when you take a demonized woman and take a life.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LAVANDERA: George Parnham had said during the lunch break, as the jury was beginning to deliberate that Andrea Yates had told her that she is ready to accept whatever punishment God sends her way. Now that is what defense attorneys are preparing for. Attorneys will return to the courtroom Thursday morning to begin preparing for the punishment phase of this trial.

Of course, now the focus is for the Yates family and the Kennedy family to save Andrea Yates' life. She faces the death penalty in this case. Now defense attorneys must focus on putting on witnesses that will convince this jury to spare her life for drowning her five children -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Ed, during this penalty phase -- so-called penalty phase --when the jury will have to decide whether she should get the death penalty, lethal injection in the state of Texas or life in prison without the possibility of parole, are there specific guidelines that the jury will receive from the judge to determine which of these decisions they should go forward with?

LAVANDERA: There's a list of questions they must answer to determine whether or not Andrea Yates will be sentenced to death. It's not like they're going to get a paper that says death penalty and they will check that off. They will be asked. And one of the questions that they must answer is whether or not they think Andrea Yates is a future threat to society. That's the question. If they answer yes to that, then that gets the ball rolling in that direction. That's one of the main questions they have to answer when they start hearing this testimony on Thursday.

BLITZER: Ed Lavandera has been covering this trial from day one back in June. Thanks for your reporting. Thanks for joining us.

Let's get some legal perspective now on this verdict in the case which has gripped much of the nation.

Joining me here in Washington, Cynthia Alksne, our CNN legal analyst, and Michael Zeldin, also a former federal prosecutor. And from Houston, Dick Deguerin, a defense attorney who's tried similar cases in the past.

Dick, first of all to you, I know you probably are surprised because I spoke to you about an hour before this jury made its decision and you thought the defense had done a pretty credible job.

DICK DEGUERIN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, I did. It's got a lot of people surprised here, Wolf and scratching their head. I think -- I'm trying to do an instant analysis. I think the Texas law is awfully tough to overcome, particularly when the jury doesn't know what the consequence of a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict would be, which is hospitalization of course.

BLITZER: And you must have been also stunned by how quickly the jury reached its decision -- 3 1/2 hours.

DEGUERIN: They've been in trial over three weeks. They've heard hour after hour of testimony. Lot of it very sophisticated high-level of intelligence testimony. To try to sort all that out in three hours just doesn't seem to me that there's enough time for that.

BLITZER: All right. Dick, stand by. I want to bring in Cynthia Alksne, our legal analyst in. You were stunned, like so many others, by the rapid decision that was made.

CYNTHIA ALKSNE, FMR. FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I was stunned. What it means is they had essentially made up their mind before closing statements. We spent a lot of time today talking about who did what on closing statement. Who was the most effective person. The truth of the matter is it didn't matter at all. They already made up their mind. You could not have listened to the opening statements and analyzed this evidence and made up your mind after the jury charge. It had to have been done before. BLITZER: During the course of the summation points that were made by the prosecution and the defense earlier today, you came away like so many others thinking that the defense scored some major points.

ALKSNE: If you look at the case just by the summations today the defense was far superior. The opening, closing -- the first argument by the prosecution was very weak, to the point of bad. The second closing by the prosecution was strong and the third closing was weak again. From a trial lawyer's analysis of the case, if you only looked at the closings, the defense attorneys would have won this case. But they didn't.

BLITZER: Michael Zeldin, what's your bottom line assessment? Why this jury reached this speedy decision? Obviously a unanimous decision.

MICHAEL ZELDIN, FMR. FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I think Andrea Yates' testimony against herself, which is that she called 911 essentially acknowledging right from wrong, and the rebuttal testimony which said that she held these kids. She tricked these kids to entice them into the room. And that she planned it. That is, that she waited for this one hour window of opportunity and went for it. It almost looks like premeditated with malice. That's murder one.

BLITZER: Dick, as you know, having watched this case and having been involved in similar cases over the years, when the mother of Andrea Yates and the husband of Andrea Yates testified on her behalf saying she couldn't tell the difference between right and wrong, one would have thought that would have had a strong impact on the jury.

DEGUERIN: I would think so, too, Wolf. But, like Chuck Rosenthal said at the very beginning, and it became the prosecution's mantra, five dead babies.

BLITZER: Chuck Rosenfeld being one of the psychiatrists?

DEGUERIN: No, no. Rosenthal is the district attorney here, made the decision to go for the death penalty. And he said five dead babies. The prosecution repeated that day after day. Brought the pictures in. The only way the jury could have done this is on an emotional basis, not on an intellectual basis. I'm afraid that's what happened.

BLITZER: You managed to get a jury to spare the life of a client that you had who also murdered children, right?

DEGUERIN: There were some differences in that case. There were a lot of similarities in the case. But one thing we had a very abusive husband who was sexually and physically abusing both the Juan Alayha (ph) and her children. They were living in penury. They had no money. The social circumstances were terrible. And eventually the prosecution agreed that she was insane.

BLITZER: In this particular case, there was a big difference -- go ahead... ZELDIN: I was going to say the odd point is the law of Texas which says the person is insane and they knew the difference from right and wrong. They're inconsistent. It seems to me that once you reach the decision that a person is insane you should never be able to ask do they know right from wrong.

It's an anomalous legal phenomenon that Texas has. And this county puts people to death more than anybody.

BLITZER: The history, Cynthia, maybe you can tell our viewers. After John Hinckley was convicted, he was shown to be insane, not guilty after attempting to shoot President Reagan, the laws in so many states changed, didn't they?

ALKSNE: They did. And that's one thing that's interesting about trial watching. It's not just our interest in a particular case. But when we all watch trials and become engaged in people, law changes. And the law changes after Hinckley. It tried to change too far. Now probably the pendulum will swing and the law may change again. And we will see if that is the effect of this case. That may be this case's legacy.

ZELDIN: And what may be the legacy is that the jury comes back, and does not send her to the death penalty -- phase --

BLITZER: Well let's --

ALKSNE: Does not convict of her of the death penalty.

BLITZER: Let's ask Dick Deguerin. This goes now to the penalty phase, where the jury will have to determine whether she's executed, lethal injection, or whether she spends the rest of her life in jail. What are the factors that they will have to weigh in a Texas jury, as we look forward to this next stage?

DEGUERIN: There are two questions that the jury has to answer. One is, is she a future danger to anybody else? And the answer ought to be no to that. And the second question is, are there mitigating circumstances that make imposition of the death penalty inappropriate? And the answer to that ought to be yes. There are such mitigating circumstances; her mental illness. I just don't see that this is a death penalty case.

I don't think it should have been prosecuted as one. But what it had the end result of being is that they got a death qualified jury, which is a much tougher jury, than a jury that would have been able to consider all of the options.

BLITZER: And Cynthia, as these mitigating circumstances are considered by the jury, there will be additional witnesses that will come forward to testify. People obviously urging her, urging the jury to spare her life. What are some of the other factors they'll have to weigh?

ALKSNE: Well, they'll be talking mostly about her mental illness. I mean, that's -- we're going to hear it all again. BLITZER: Do they basically do the whole case once again all over again?

ALKSNE: They basically try to put a different spin on it, and do the case again. Because they had not reached this jury. They had tried to reach this jury for three...

BLITZER: The prosecution?

ALKSNE: ... and a half weeks, The defense. The defense is trying to reach the jury at this point. They obviously did not. So now they have got to figure out a different way to spare her life. Any jury that finds this woman guilty in 3 1/2 hours, they have to be worried that they're going to give her the death penalty.

BLITZER: Michael, can the defense at this particular point, having failed to convince the jury that she's insane, should be found not guilty -- can they bring in new evidence, new witnesses to try to spare her life?

ZELDIN: No. They can bring in essentially the same evidence repackaged. One can only hope, if you're a death penalty opponent, is that the jury not understanding that a guilt -- not guilty by reason of insanity would not free her. Now, we'll say fine. We'll make sure she's going to make sure that she is going to punished, but we're not going to kill her because she was mentally ill.

Remember, the prosecutor and defense essentially agreed this woman was mentally ill. The question was right from wrong. Now they say we've punished her, she's not going. And does the mental illness spare her life? That's the only question left for the jury.

BLITZER: Dick Deguerin, I know it's always easier sitting on the sidelines, watching, coming up with Monday morning quarter backing, but if you had been the defense attorney in this particular case, what, if anything, differently would you have done?

DEGUERIN: Well, I don't know that I'd done anything differently. I have always suspected that there was more to what happened with her home life than has been brought out. But I have to disagree with one thing; the defense can bring in any new evidence, if they haven't brought something in yet. I can't imagine what that would be unless there are other mental health experts. Either side can bring in other evidence at the punishment phase.

But what is most likely, and I'm going to go out on a limb a little bit here. I think the jury is probably already decided what her punishment is going to be. They're not supposed to, they're not supposed to consider that, but for a verdict to be this quick, I think they've already decided probably that they're going to give her life in prison.

BLITZER: On the basis of what, Dick, do you give her that?

DEGUERIN: Well, because of all the conflicting testimony on whether she knew right from wrong. The burden of proof is on the defense, only by preponderance of evidence to prove that she did not know that her conduct was wrong. And there was so much evidence on that. I just don't see how they could have made up their mind completely on that. And they probably have some doubt about it. And they'll resolve that doubt in favor of a life sentence as opposed to the death penalty.

BLITZER: Cynthia, you agree with him on that?

ALKSNE: I do. And I think there is another point that I would just like to highlight again. And that is that they didn't know --

BLITZER: Who is they?

ALKSNE: The jury did not know if they gave her not guilty by reason of insanity that she would have been institutionalized in a criminal facility for most of her life anyway. They didn't know that option. All they knew was she would get some treatment. And there are certain places in this country, if they say that, well then she might get out in a year. It wouldn't have been so in Texas.

ZELDIN: No.

ALKSNE: But they didn't know that. And so this may be their vehicle of getting her the treatment that she needs, and making sure she doesn't have any more babies.

BLITZER: And when you take a look, Michael Zeldin, at this penalty phase, do you agree with Dick that the jury probably has already made up its mind? If you ask me, as a casual observer, having watched this -- this case unfold over these past many months, the speedy decision that the jury made could lead one to the opposite conclusion. They want to see her executed.

ZELDIN: Right. And I don't know the answer to that question. I can not predict what's in this jury's mind. I can only reiterate what I said before, which is that I hope, as a death penalty opponent, that they have reached the decision that she deserves to be punished, not knowing the answer about what not guilty by reason of insanity means. And that their punishment is going to be life imprisonment for her.

BLITZER: Dick --

ZELDIN: I would like to day, one thing about what Dick said is that, I was not suggesting they couldn't bring in new evidence, what I was suggesting is is there's nothing really new to say here. This jury has all the evidence that they need to make their decision. And it's a gut check. Do they want to kill her or not kill her? And I think they've made up that mind already.

BLITZER: We saw in the jury, Dick Deguerin, Rusty -- Russell Yates as the verdict was announced. He put his head in his hands. He was obviously distraught. The impact, the reaction from the family, the mother, the husband, will that have an impact on this jury in determining whether she should be sent to jail for the rest of her life or be executed? DEGUERIN: I think so, it's got to. The jury has got to empathize with these poor folks who have had such a tremendous loss. And to compound the loss with what's happened now to Andrea Yates, being convicted, the jury is bound to feel sorry for them. These are good people, they didn't deserve the death of all of these children. And to compound it by sending her to prison is going to be hard for them.

BLITZER: Dick Deguerin, thanks for joining us today for your insight in Houston. I'm sure we'll have you back, as well as Michael Zeldin, Cynthia (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Thanks as usually to both of you, as well.

And please note, stay tuned for continuing coverage of the Yates verdict here on CNN on "CROSSFIRE," which comes up right after this program. As well as on "THE POINT" with Anderson Cooper. That's at 8:30 p.m. Eastern. And, of course, on "NEWSNIGHT" with Aaron Brown at 10:00 p.m. Eastern, as well.

And when we come back, progress in Operation Anaconda and a tragic battlefield mistake. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back.

The Pentagon is not yet declaring victory, but it does say Operation Anaconda, the battle in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan, is winding down. More now from our military affairs correspondent, Jamie McIntyre.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A smart bomb from a U.S. Air Force F-16 hits a cave entrance, collapsing it with suspected enemy forces inside. It's just one of more than 2,500 bombs the U.S. has dropped since Operation Anaconda began 10 days ago.

U.S. commanders originally expected to rout the al Qaeda and Taliban in two or three days, but facing stiffer resistance and greater numbers, U.S. troops are just now reaching the mopping up stage.

BRIG. GEN. JOHN ROSA, U.S. AIR FORCE: The last 72 hours, it's been more sporadic, focused on smaller pockets of Taliban and al Qaeda.

MCINTYRE: The focus is now on clearing a mountain ridge dubbed the whaleback, for the way it rises from the Shah-e-Kot valley floor like the back of a whale, and inspecting more than 40 heavily fortified caves where al Qaeda forces were dug in for a fight to the death.

ROSA: We have started, but are nowhere near completing entering the large majority of those caves. You can imagine with the booby traps, with landmines, with unexpended ordnance, we've got to go very slow, very calculating, very carefully.

MCINTYRE: The Pentagon says this particular operation may be winding down, but there will be more.

VICTORIA CLARKE, PENTAGON SPOKESWOMAN: There's still a lot of work to be done in Afghanistan and there are still pockets of resistance that we'll have to root out.

MCINTYRE: The U.S. is taking few prisoners. Only 17 have been taken alive and one died of illness shortly after capture. Pentagon officials say it will be difficult for more than a handful of al Qaeda to escape with U.S. and Afghan troops on the high ground watching all routes out.

Orders could come this week to dispatch U.S. troops to both Yemen and Georgia. They will be limited to training and equipping Georgian troops, but in Yemen, Pentagon sources say, U.S. troops may accompany Yemeni forces on anti-terrorist raids.

(on camera): After first saying it was unaware of any women or children killed in Operation Anaconda, the Pentagon now says some were among 14 people killed in an airstrike last week. Officials say a U.S. fighter jet attacked a vehicle fleeing a known al Qaeda stronghold and insists it was a legitimate target. One wounded survivor, a child, was evacuated to a U.S. military hospital and is said to be in stable condition.

Jamie McIntyre, CNN, the Pentagon.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: And remember, I'd like to hear from you. Please go to my Web page at cnn.com/wolf. Click on the designation for comments. I'll read them, as will my producers. And this note, please don't miss the CNN WAR ROOM tomorrow night. With the possibility looming of a U.S. attack on Iraq, we'll get a rare public glimpse of how President Saddam Hussein is running his country. Our program, "Target Iraq" can be seen tomorrow night, 7:00 p.m. Eastern here on CNN.

And up next, now that a jury has found Andrea Yates guilty of murdering her children, what's next for the Houston mother? We'll be back with in just a moment with that and a quick check of the top stories.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back.

In our "News Alert", the suspense is now over in the verdict portion of the Andrea Yates murder trial. Next, suspense as to whether the jury will vote for life in prison or the death penalty. The Houston jury rejected Yates' claims of insanity and found her guilty of capital murder.

In the Middle East, a major military buildup and rising violence and tension. Israel television is reporting that 20,000 Israeli troops are taking part in military operations in the West Bank and Gaza, where fierce gun battles are being waged at Palestinian refugee camps.

That's all the time we have tonight. Thanks very much for joining us. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. "CROSSFIRE" begins right now.

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