Networked Knowledge - Court Reports

R v Andrea Yates (Texas) 2005

[This version of the judgment has been edited by Dr Robert N Moles
Underlining where it occurs is for editorial emphasis]

USA homepage
DNA homepage
Article: Australian law on miscarriages of justice
Article: UK law on miscarriages of justice
Article: USA law on miscarriages of justice

6 Jan 2005

Chief Justice Radack and Justices Taft and Nuchia

Judgment

Yates was charged with murder for the drowning deaths of 3 of her 5 children. Rejecting her insanity defense, the jury found her guilty and, having said she was not a continuing threat to society, she was sentenced to life in prison. Following the verdict and before the punishment phase, Yates learned that the State’s expert witness, Dr Dietz, had presented false testimony. Motion for mistrial having been denied, we reverse and remand.

Andrea and Russell were married in April 1993. Noah born February 1994; their John, December 1995; Paul September 1997. The family lived in a recreational vehicle and then in a trailer park. At one point, Andrea told her husband she felt depressed and he suggested that she talk to her mother and a friend.

February 1999 Luke was born. In June 1999 Andrea suffered severe depression and tried to commit suicide by taking an overdose of an antidepressant that had been prescribed for her father. She was admitted to hospital. After her release six days later, she began seeing a psychiatrist, Dr Starbranch, as an outpatient. In July 1999 Russell found Andrea in the bathroom, holding a knife to her neck. Dr Starbranch recommended that Andrea be admitted to hospital. She was admitted, against her wishes, the next day. She told a psychologist, Dr Thompson, that she had had visions and had heard voices since the birth of her first child. Starbranch ranked Andrea, at the time of her admission among the 5 sickest patients she had ever seen. Before discharging Andrea, Starbranch told Russell that Andrea had a high risk of another psychotic episode if she had another baby.

August 1999 the Yates family moved from the bus to a house that Russell had bought while Andrea was in the hospital. That fall, Andrea began home-schooling Noah. She saw Dr Starbranch for the last time in January 2000. She told Starbranch that she had stopped taking her medication in November 1999. In November 2000, Andrea’s fifth child, Mary, was born. In March 2001, Andrea’s father died. This death seemed to precipitate a decline in Andrea’s functioning, and she began to suffer from depression. In March 2001, Russell contacted Starbranch and told her that Andrea was ill again. Starbranch wanted to see her immediately, but Russell said he could not bring her in until the next Monday.

Andrea was admitted to hospital on March 31, 2001. She was observed as being catatonic or nearly catatonic and possibly delusional or having bizarre thoughts. She was treated by Dr Saeed and placed on a suicide watch. She was discharged April 13, 2001 at her own and Russell’s request. She began an outpatient program, and Dr Saeed recommended that someone stay with her at all times and that she not be left alone with her children.

On April 19, Russell’s mother came for a visit. She had intended to stay for about 1 week, but, when he told his mother that Andrea was suffering from depression, she decided to stay longer and moved to a nearby hotel. Mother went to Andrea’s home every day - she observed that Andrea was almost catatonic, did not respond to conversation or made a delayed response, stared into space, trembled, scratched her head until she created bald spots, and did not eat. On May 3, Andrea filled a bathtub with water, but could not give a good reason for doing so. When asked, she said, “I might need it.” On May 4, she was re-admitted to hospital, and on May 14, she was discharged, seeming to be better. Dr Saeed had prescribed medication, and Andrea continued to take it after her discharge. Dr Saeed also recommended ECT, but Andrea rejected that.

Andrea was able to take care of her children, but was still uncommunicative and withdrawn. She smiled infrequently and seemed to have no emotions, but Russell left her alone with the children. On June 4, Andrea saw Dr Saeed, who decided to taper her off the medication. Andrea denied having any suicidal or psychotic thoughts and met with the Dr again on June 18. She was no longer taking Haldol, and the Dr adjusted the dosages of her other anti-depressant medications.

June 20 at 9:48 am, Andrea called 911 and asked for police to come to her home. She  called Russell at work and told him he needed to come home. As Russell was leaving, he called her and asked if anyone was hurt, and she said that the kids were hurt. He asked, “Which ones?” She responded, “All of them.”

Within minutes several police officers arrived at the home. They discovered 4 dead children, soaking wet and covered with a sheet, lying on Andrea’s bed. The fifth child, Noah, was still in the bathtub, floating face down. Andrea was quiet and cooperative with the police officers.

At trial, 10 psychiatrists and 2 psychologists testified regarding Andrea’s mental illness. 4 psychiatrists and a psychologist said that Andrea did not know right from wrong, was incapable of knowing what she did was wrong.

Dr Dietz interviewed Andrea and was the State’s mental-health expert in the case. He said that Andrea was psychotic on June 20, but knew that what she did was wrong. He reasoned that because Andrea indicated that her thoughts were coming from Satan, she must have known they were wrong; and that she covered the bodies out of guilt or shame.

Andrea’s counsel asked Dr Dietz about his consulting work with the television show, “Law & Order,” which Andrea was known to watch. The testimony was as follows:

Q. Now, you are, are you not, a consultant on the television program known as “Law & Order”?
A .Two of them.
Q. Okay. Did either one of those deal with postpartum depression or women’s mental health?
A. As a matter of fact, there was a show of a woman with postpartum depression who drowned her children in the bathtub and was found insane and it was aired shortly before the crime occurred.

The second mention of “Law & Order” came during Dr Puryear’s testimony. A defense expert witness, she was cross-examined by the State regarding her evaluation of Andrea. She was asked about her failure to inquire into whether or not Andrea had seen “Law & Order.”:

Q. You know she watched “Law & Order” a lot; right?
A. I didn’t know. No.
Q. Did you know that in the weeks before June 20th, there was a “Law & Order” episode where a woman killed her children by drowning them in a bathtub, was defended on the basis of whether she was sane or insane under the law, and the diagnosis was postpartum depression and in the program the person was found insane, not guilty by reason of insanity? Did you know that?
A. No.
Q. If you had known that and had known that Andrea Yates was subject to these delusions, not that she was the subject of a delusion of reference, but that she regularly watched “Law & Order” and may have seen that episode, would you have changed the way you went about interviewing her, would you have interviewed whether she got the idea somehow she could do this and not suffer hell or prison?
A.I certainly wouldn’t have asked her that question. No.
Q. Would you have - - you didn’t have to ask her that question, but you could have explored that?
A. If I had known she watched that show, I would have ask[ed] her about it, yes.

In his final argument Andrea’s attorney referred to Dr Dietz’s testimony by stating, “Or maybe even we heard some evidence that she saw some show on TV and knew she could drown her children and get away with it.” The prosecutor, in his final argument, made the following reference to Dietz’s testimony about the “Law & Order” episode:

She gets very depressed and goes into Devereux. And at times she says these thoughts came to her during that month. These thoughts came to her, and she watches “Law & Order” regularly, she sees this program. There is a way out. She tells that to Dr Dietz. A way out.

After the jury had returned a guilty verdict, Andrea’s counsel discovered that Dr Dietz had given false testimony. The producer of “Law & Order” spoke to counsel and said he could not recall such an episode. An attorney representing the producer, after researching the shows, verified that there was no show with a plot as outlined by Dr Dietz who then acknowledged that he had made an error in his testimony.

Andrea and the State entered into the following written stipulation:

1.Dr Park Dietz testified on cross-examination that “As a matter of fact, there was a show of a woman with postpartum depression who drowned her children in the bathtub and was found insane and it was aired shortly before this crime occurred.”

2.Dr Park Dietz would testify that he was in error and that no episode of “Law & Order” and / or “Law & Order: Criminal Intent” as described above was ever produced for the “Law & Order” television series.

Andrea moved for a mistrial based on the false testimony, and the trial court denied the motion. Andrea then requested that the stipulation be admitted into evidence and read to the jury. The trial court granted this request. In connection with the stipulation, the trial court, in response to Andrea’s request, made the following statement to the jury:

Ladies and gentlemen, during the course of this trial there have been occasions when written stipulations have been introduced for your consideration. While those witnesses that give information which is contained in this stipulation do not physically appear here in court to testify, you must consider the matters which they have indicated in the written stipulation as if they actually appeared in court and give it whatever weight you wish to give to it. So the witness does not have to actually appear in court, but the matters contained in the stipulation are offered into evidence as if they had appeared.

Andrea contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion for mistrial when it was revealed that the State’s expert witness had presented false testimony. Andrea argues that his testimony was essential to the jury’s “guilty” verdict and that his testimony relating to the “Law & Order” episode was the most compelling testimony supporting his conclusion that Andrea knew right from wrong.

The State recognizes that the State’s knowing use of perjured testimony that is likely to materially affect the judgment violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. See Ex parte Castellano, 863 S.W.2d 476, 485 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). The State argues that it did not know that the testimony was false, did not use the false information, and the information was not material. We agree that this case does not involve the State’s knowing use of perjured testimony. At the hearing on Andrea’s motion for mistrial, Andrea did not complain that there had been prosecutorial misconduct.

[M]ake no mistake, the issue is not whether or not the State was aware and we have no reason to believe the State was aware that such a program did not exist. The issue is that the defense of insanity was rebutted by the testimony of Dr Dietz relative to an act of premeditation, that is a planned and/or a deceptive act on Mrs. Yates’ part, that is something that would give her an idea, a way out of these particular allegations. And that was relayed to this jury and we believe that the jury relied upon the presentation of Dr Dietz as well as the cross-examination by [the State’s attorney] of Dr Puryear relative to this particular issue.

In this case, the motion for mistrial was the functional equivalent of a motion for new trial. Generally, if a witness has testified to material, inculpatory facts against a defendant and, after the verdict but before a motion for new trial has been ruled upon, the witness makes an affidavit that he testified falsely, a new trial should be granted.

This rule does not require that the State have knowledge that the testimony was false. We review the record to determine whether the State used the false testimony and, if so, whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.

The testimony of Dr Dietz regarding his consultation on a “Law & Order” television show having a plot remarkably similar to the acts committed by Andrea was untrue and that there was no “Law & Order” television show with such a plot. The State is bound by its stipulation to these facts. However, the State asserts that it is very questionable whether it can be said that the trial prosecutors used Dr Dietz’ testimony on cross-examination, especially in light of the fact that it played absolutely no role in the development of Dr Dietz’ conclusion that the Andrea knew that her conduct was wrong.

The State used the testimony twice. First, the State used the testimony to cross-examine Dr Puryear, who had seen Andrea for several months while she was in the county jail, asking Dr Puryear whether she knew that Andrea watched “Law & Order” and whether she knew that there was an episode with a plot line mirroring Andrea’s acts. In so doing, the State repeated those facts that were common to Andrea’s acts and the referenced episode, thus emphasizing those facts already stated by Dr Dietz. Second, the State connected the dots in its final argument by juxtaposing Andrea’s depression, her dark thoughts, watching “Law & Order,” and seeing “a way out.” Thus, the State used Dr Dietz’s false testimony to suggest to the jury that Andrea patterned her actions after that “Law & Order” episode. We emphasize that the State’s use of Dr Dietz’s false testimony was not prosecutorial misconduct. Rather, it served to give weight to that testimony.

The State argues that the testimony regarding the “Law & Order” episode was not material. The State asserts that “there is no reasonable likelihood” that the testimony “could have affected the judgment of the jury,” but does not make any argument to support such a statement. We conclude that the testimony, combined with the State’s cross-examination of Dr Puryear and closing argument, was material. The materiality of the testimony is further evidenced by the fact that Andrea’s attorney felt compelled to address it in his closing argument.

The State also asserts that Dr Dietz did not suggest that Andrea used the plot of the show to plan killing her children. Although it is true that Dr Dietz did not make such a suggestion, the State did in its closing argument.

Five mental health experts testified that Andrea did not know right from wrong or that she thought what she did was right. Dr Dietz was the only mental health expert who testified that Andrea knew right from wrong. Therefore, his testimony was critical to establish the State’s case. Although the record does not show that Dr Dietz intentionally lied in his testimony, his false testimony undoubtedly gave greater weight to his opinion.

On the other hand, had the jury known prior to their deliberations in the guilt-innocence phase of the trial, that Dr Dietz’s testimony regarding the “Law & Order” episode was false, the jury would likely have considered him, the State’s only mental health expert, to be less credible.

We conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Dr Dietz’s false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury. We further conclude that Dr Dietz’s false testimony affected the substantial rights of Andrea. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in denying Andrea’s motion for mistrial.

We reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings.

Top of Page