by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright March 13, 2002
All Rights Reserved.

eliberating in less than 4-hours, a South Texas jury found Andrea Pia Yates guilty of capital murder for the horrific bathtub drowning deaths of her 5 children. Capturing national attention, the trial became referendum on mental illness, curiously running simultaneously with the Oscar nominated film "A Beautiful Mind"—the poignant story of Princeton math professor John Nash's battle with schizophrenia. Pitting compelling psychiatric testimony against plain-folk common sense, the trial weighed unspeakable cruelty against the far reaches of human compassion. In the end, the jury simply couldn't buy Yates' compulsory plea of "innocent by reason of insanity." Applying the state's definition of insanity, the 12-member panel found that despite Yates' mental illness she still knew right from wrong at the time she murdered her children. Persuasive expert testimony couldn't reverse the stubborn fact that Yates already confessed to killing her children, making it difficult for the jury to render "innocent by reason of insanity." Things might have been different had Texas permitted a verdict of "guilty and insane."

      Yates now faces death by lethal injection or life in prison without the possibility of parole. When the penalty phase gets underway, even death penalty opponents will have difficulty arguing that Andrea should be spared the same fate as her children. Only her husband Russell will find more excuses why the state should subsidize his wife's tragic life. "The children had become a hindrance, and she wanted them gone," said prosecutor Kaylynn Williford, emphatically urging the jury to show no mercy. "She made the choice of knowing it was a sin in the eyes of God and a crime." But even exaggerating Yates' willful intent wasn't needed to sway jurors. Knowing that Andrea considered stabbing, chose drowning, waited until her husband left for work before killing her kids, and then called 9/11 to report her crime, involved far too much planning to accept an insanity plea. Jurors also knew that Yates told a state psychiatrist that "it was a bad idea" to drown her children, proving, if nothing else, that she knew right from wrong when she committed the murders.

      Suffering from postpartum psychosis, depression, schizophrenia or any other affliction doesn't automatically get murderers off the hook. Even mental retardation doesn't rule out accountability, though mental illness and subnormal intelligence certainly should be considered during the penalty phases of capital cases. "The problem with the Texas definition of insanity," said Gerald Treece associate dean of South Texas College of Law, "is a person can be totally psychotic and still in that world they know right from wrong." But Treece, again, assumes incorrectly that "totally psychotic" means that a person loses all intellectual or moral faculties—something not proven in Andrea Yates" trial. Spontaneous violence has a far better chance of convincing juries than well-planned murders. Treece's "totally psychotic" argument doesn't apply to Andrea Yates, who considered—in advance—the specific killing method and who to call after she completed the job. Two-hours into their deliberations, the jury asked for the legal definition of insanity. Judging by the outcome, the jury got it right.

      Blinded by zeal, death penalty opponents sometimes miss key facts needed to render fair verdicts. In retrospect, using the "insanity" defense might have been a tactical error, knowing all the facts. An old fashion "guilty with explanation" or plea bargain might have been the most prudent way to spare Yates the death penalty. "It seems to me we are still back in the days of the Salem witch trials," said Yates' defense lawyer George Parnham, reacting to the jury's verdict and diverting attention away from his strategic miscalculation. Parnham knew full well that Yates' trial wasn't about religious persecution. Showing sour grapes, "If this woman doesn't meet the standard for insanity, nobody does," said Parnham, hoping for better luck during the sentencing phase. "We might as well wipe it off the books." Surely Parnham knows that with so much evidence of premeditation, proving insanity was a long shot. Whether Yates' suffered from schizophrenia at the time she murdered her kids also wasn't at stake. When applying the cold facts, Yates really didn't fit the legal definition of insanity.

      Since "guilty by reason of insanity" wasn't an option, the jury simply couldn't ignore Yates' confession. Rendering her not guilty by reason of insanity made no sense because Yates admitted guilt and premeditation. "It's ludicrous—this woman shouldn't even be standing trial," said Cyndie Aquilina, a jury consultant for the defense. "You can look at her eyes in the mug shot. That woman was on another planet." Yes, we can all agree that Yates was mentally ill, but that doesn't absolve her of criminal liability. Ascribing jealousy or anger also didn't prove that Yates was sane at the time of the murders. "Maybe she wanted to punish her husband for what she'd been through," said Williford, convincing the jury that Yates had all her marbles when she went on her killing spree. But establishing a credible motive wasn't required to discredit Yates' insanity defense. No matter how crazy the defense painted Yates, the jury only needed to answer whether she knew right from wrong.

      With guilt already established, jurors must now choose between lethal injection and life in prison. Jurors must answer whether Yates' mental illness mitigates her fate. But with the jury already rejecting Yates insanity defense, it's hard to imagine a more befitting punishment than death. Society places the highest premium on the protection of children. No murder can be more heinous than slaughtering innocent children. With gruesome descriptions of how Yates hunted down and murdered Noah, 7 and John, 5, don't look for this jury to show much mercy. Mental illness afflicts many people, but doesn't provide a nifty excuse to get people off the hook. Yates went through too much planning for this jury to consider mental illness as a mitigating circumstance. Making trials referendums on the death penalty or mental illness boomerang when defense attorneys don't stick to the facts already in evidence. With Yates' open confession, how could jurors pronounce her "innocent by reason of insanity?" Insane or not, she was still guilty.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com and columnist for the Los Angeles Daily Journal. He's director of a Los Angeles think tank specializing in political consulting and strategic communication. He's author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.