Andrea Yates To Get New Trial

[Dennis K]

The thread title speaks for itself. Thoughts?

[west3man]

The thread title speaks for itself. Thoughts?
My first thought was, "Who's Andrea Yates."

CNN link. (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/yates/)

"Conviction overturned

A Texas appeals court in early 2005 reversed the capital murder convictions of Andrea Yates, the woman who drowned her five children in a bathtub, citing the false testimony of a prosecution witness. Jurors in 2002 sentenced Yates to life in prison in the 2001 deaths of three of her children: Noah, 7, John, 5, and Mary, 6 months. She was not tried in the deaths of the other two, Luke, 3, and Paul, 2. Jurors deliberated for three hours and 40 minutes before finding Yates guilty of murder on March 13, 2002. Her attorneys argued that Yates was insane when she drowned the children but prosecutors said Yates knew what she was doing was wrong."

[Valmore]

The thread title speaks for itself. Thoughts?

I'm not sure where they want to go with this trial, aside from setting her into a mental facility for the rest of her life. Which would be fine by me as well - prison, mental facility, so long as she isn't free on the streets after killing all five of her children.

And if they want to put her asshat husband in jail for a spell, too, I'm all for it.

[Dennis K]

And if they want to put her asshat husband in jail for a spell, too, I'm all for it.


Truer words have seldom been spoken.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Here's the crux of the problem with the trial from CNN's article:

Testimony might have been influential

Dietz, who worked as consultant for NBC's "Law and Order" program, testified that there was an episode dealing with a woman suffering from postpartum depression who drowned her children in a bathtub and was found to have been insane.

Yates, now 40, apparently was a fan of the show and watched it regularly.

Dietz suggested that Yates might have been inspired to kill her children because of that specific episode. But on appeal, the defense said it contacted the producers of the show, who said such an episode was never aired.

"We conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Dr. Dietz's false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury," the appeals court found. "We further conclude that Dr. Dietz's false testimony affected the substantial rights of the appellant."

The appeals court ruling found that Dietz did not intentionally lie and the prosecution did not knowingly use false testimony.

Parnham said Dietz' testimony was critical to the prosecution's case.


"Only one mental health expert testified that Andrea knew that what she was doing was wrong, and that was the celebrated Park Dietz," he said. "And without his testimony, every other mental health expert ... all testified that she was either incapable of knowing what she was doing was wrong, or did not know what she was doing was wrong."

I heard an interview with Dietz in which he claimed that he had been consulted on a script for just such a show and must have confused those conversations with a show that actually aired.

To which I say "bullshit."

If you're testifying in a murder trial, in which you know the defense is that she's crazy and your testimony is, in effect, "she's making it all up," then wouldn't it perhaps be incumbant upon you to check whether or not such an episode aired? It's called doing your homework. If you're going to make such an accusation in court, you should be prepared to back it up.

In fact, wouldn't it be the prosecutor's job to watch the freaking episode himself? After all, if the alleged episode played out exactly as the crime occurred, that would help his case quite a bit, no?

Sloppy work by the prosecutor and his expert witness. Tell Doc Hollywood to go back and work in fairy tale land. He has no business testifying in a serious criminal prosecution.

[Boldido]

I think its a waste of judicial of resources. There is no doubt in my mind that she will never get out of jail.

1. She drowned her own kids.
2. Its Texas.

Andrea isn't going anywhere.

That being said, however, I would like to know what the alleged perjured testimony was.

Edit:

"Only one mental health expert testified that Andrea knew that what she was doing was wrong, and that was the celebrated Park Dietz," he said. "And without his testimony, every other mental health expert ... all testified that she was either incapable of knowing what she was doing was wrong, or did not know what she was doing was wrong."

Or maybe she is.

[Shellhead]

I don't care whether she did or did not know what she was doing was wrong... there is no place in any society for a woman who killed her five kids. We just can't have her out in the world coming into contact with innocent children. Should she be in a mental institution instead? Maybe, but it seems pointless to me, because we will never be able to trust her again. Personally, I think the only humane solution in this case is the death penalty, because if she was crazy and somehow regains her sanity some day, she will face the crushing guilt of having killed her five kids.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Andrea isn't going anywhere.

Or maybe she is.

Nah. My understanding is that Texas doesn't have an NGI, get out of jail free card. I think that if the defense "wins," she goes to a mental institution. If they lose, she goes to prison. At least, that's how it worked in CA and works in WI. If found NGI, the defendant is sentenced to a mental institution for a length of time up to the max he or she could have faced in prison. There are provisions where the defendant can petition for release after a certain period of time if he or she is "cured," but there are lots of hoops to jump through first, first and foremost being that the shrinks all have to agree that you no longer pose a danger to society. And with the state shrinks, that's a pretty high burden.

[K'Nort]

I'd expect there's no way for her to get out, per se. It would be more an issue of spending a LOT more money to come up with a different reason for her to be locked away. People only get off on a technicality if that technicality is the only evidence to convict them.

On the other hand, if something was done incorrectly, they would pretty much have to do a new trial. That's what justice is.

[Dee3]

I'm not sure where they want to go with this trial, aside from setting her into a mental facility for the rest of her life. Which would be fine by me as well - prison, mental facility, so long as she isn't free on the streets after killing all five of her children.

And if they want to put her asshat husband in jail for a spell, too, I'm all for it.
Good point from what I gather The husband ingnored the doctors advice that she shouldn't have anymore children becuse of her post pardem problems, but he went ahead anyway based on religous pupouses.

[K'Nort]

Good point from what I gather The husband ingnored the doctors advice that she shouldn't have anymore children becuse of her post pardem problems, but he went ahead anyway based on religous pupouses.

That is not illegal. And the 'religious purposes' angle is distored as usual.

[Typo Lad]

That is not illegal. And the 'religious purposes' angle is distored as usual.

Yeah, don't blame religion for what this idiot did.

For the record, many religions DO have "allowances" in cased where mental/physical health is an issue.

[YoursTruly]

I could be wrong but if someone could kill their own children... they're capable of committing any crime imaginable. I say lock her up and throw away the key if ya can't execute her.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I could be wrong but if someone could kill their own children... they're capable of committing any crime imaginable. I say lock her up and throw away the key if ya can't execute her.

She had severe, post-partum depression with psychotic features, a treatable condition. I'm glad she's getting a new trial. Perhaps there will be some degree of justice this time around.

[Valmore]

She had severe, post-partum depression with psychotic features, a treatable condition. I'm glad she's getting a new trial. Perhaps there will be some degree of justice this time around.

I'm not certain what justice would serve in this case, unless they want to shove her husband in jail for exacerbating her condition by having her bear more children, keeping her at home as a stay-at-home mommy who he basically controlled into having no social life outside the home. Oh, and not continuing with her treatments, even though he knew of her condition. Not to mention he wanted her back just to impregnate her with even more children.

Frankly, he's as culpable as she is.

But she still doesn't deserve to have freedom in society, no matter what mental condition she had. Life in mental would be just fine by me. Just so long as she doesn't get released.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I'm not certain what justice would serve in this case, unless they want to shove her husband in jail for exacerbating her condition by having her bear more children, keeping her at home as a stay-at-home mommy who he basically controlled into having no social life outside the home. Oh, and not continuing with her treatments, even though he knew of her condition. Not to mention he wanted her back just to impregnate her with even more children.

Frankly, he's as culpable as she is.

I don't have any real arguments with any of the above.

But she still doesn't deserve to have freedom in society, no matter what mental condition she had. Life in mental would be just fine by me. Just so long as she doesn't get released.

This I have a big problem with. What you're arguing is the equivalent of saying that someone who is driving, has a seizure and causes an accident, killing someone, should be locked away forever. That's both unjust and, frankly, stupid. Should such a person drive? No, unless the seizure disorder can be treated and effectively put in full remission. But locked away? No. And fact is, Ms. Yates had no more control over her behavior when she killed her child than would a person in the midst of seizure.

As opposed to some other conditions, where treatment is a very iffy thing, post-partum depression is a very treatable disorder, and when treated effectively, the person is no threat to anyone.

[Valmore]

This I have a big problem with. What you're arguing is the equivalent of saying that someone who is driving, has a seizure and causes an accident, killing someone, should be locked away forever. That's both unjust and, frankly, stupid. Should such a person drive? No, unless the seizure disorder can be treated and effectively put in full remission. But locked away? No. And fact is, Ms. Yates had no more control over her behavior when she killed her child than would a person in the midst of seizure.

As opposed to some other conditions, where treatment is a very iffy thing, post-partum depression is a very treatable disorder, and when treated effectively, the person is no threat to anyone.

I'm not so certain, Andrea Yates methodically drowned all five of her children, including chasing one of them when he tried to run away from his fate. Her mind condition may have played a part, but I'm not willing to overlook the fact that that's five innocent lives she snuffed out in a rather methodical fashion. That says to me that she certainly had a lot more control than someone who had a seizure behind a car wheel, no matter what mental condidion she suffered.

Sure, she should be treated. But set free? Even if she poses no risk to anyone, that's still five deaths. I'd say it would take a lot of mental help to get her over THAT fact after they get her out of her depression.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I'm not so certain, Andrea Yates methodically drowned all five of her children, including chasing one of them when he tried to run away from his fate. Her mind condition may have played a part, but I'm not willing to overlook the fact that that's five innocent lives she snuffed out in a rather methodical fashion. That says to me that she certainly had a lot more control than someone who had a seizure behind a car wheel, no matter what mental condidion she suffered.
What you need to keep in mind is what the legal concept of insanity means. Essentially, it comes down to the person not being able to control one's behavior, show better judgment or prevent him/herself from acting in accordance with delusions/hallucinations. A psychotic person does not become stupid or incapable of reacting or planning, but their reactions and plans will be dominated by the delusions which drive their behavior.

Sure, she should be treated. But set free? Even if she poses no risk to anyone, that's still five deaths. I'd say it would take a lot of mental help to get her over THAT fact after they get her out of her depression.

From what I have heard, she has been working on those issues - dealing with having caused the deaths of her children - while in prison.

[Boldido]

What you need to keep in mind is what the legal concept of insanity means. Essentially, it comes down to the person not being able to control one's behavior, show better judgment or prevent him/herself from acting in accordance with delusions/hallucinations. A psychotic person does not become stupid or incapable of reacting or planning, but their reactions and plans will be dominated by the delusions which drive their behavior.



From what I have heard, she has been working on those issues - dealing with having caused the deaths of her children - while in prison.

I take issue with your standard of legal insanity. My understanding, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, is that Texas operates under the McNaughton rule: "at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong."

Your definition seems to also encompass "irresistable impulse" which most jurisdictions don't recognize.

In addition, she immediately called 911 after she killed her kids. She was aware of 911 and aware that there was something that constituted an emergency for which the authorities were needed. Since insanity is an affirmative defense, it is incumbent upon her to present proof that she was insane at the time of the event. I have no doubt in my mind that she was mentally ill, but I don't think her follow up actions support an insanity defense. She needs to be locked up forever. She is horrific and tragic at the same time.

[K'Nort]

This I have a big problem with. What you're arguing is the equivalent of saying that someone who is driving, has a seizure and causes an accident, killing someone, should be locked away forever. That's both unjust and, frankly, stupid. Should such a person drive? No, unless the seizure disorder can be treated and effectively put in full remission. But locked away? No. And fact is, Ms. Yates had no more control over her behavior when she killed her child than would a person in the midst of seizure.

As opposed to some other conditions, where treatment is a very iffy thing, post-partum depression is a very treatable disorder, and when treated effectively, the person is no threat to anyone.

Hi!!!

And I think most people, especially since it's not like they have mental health backgrounds, have trouble taking it on faith that these things are fully treatable and that she wouldn't be a threat again. The general public never hears about the people who have a one-time seizure and that's it. They hear about the relapses and horrible things that happen when "it happens again." The risk threshold is really really unclear.

So it's more like thinking that the person who had the seizure while driving has a condition that will cause repeated, unpredicted seizures for the rest of their life and thus should not be allowed to drive.

[JeffreyWKramer]

So it's more like thinking that the person who had the seizure while driving has a condition that will cause repeated, unpredicted seizures for the rest of their life and thus should not be allowed to drive.

Some people do have poorly-controlled seizure disorder, and are not allowed to drive any more. That's the point, though. They're disallowed from driving, not locked away forever, even if their first seizure resulted in deaths.

I think it a fine idea to disallow Andrea Yates from ever being a parent again, or around children unsupervised, given her actions when ill. I don't see any value to treating her as generally dangerous, though.

[Slam_Bradley]

I take issue with your standard of legal insanity. My understanding, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, is that Texas operates under the McNaughton rule: "at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong."

Your definition seems to also encompass "irresistable impulse" which most jurisdictions don't recognize.

In addition, she immediately called 911 after she killed her kids. She was aware of 911 and aware that there was something that constituted an emergency for which the authorities were needed. Since insanity is an affirmative defense, it is incumbent upon her to present proof that she was insane at the time of the event. I have no doubt in my mind that she was mentally ill, but I don't think her follow up actions support an insanity defense. She needs to be locked up forever. She is horrific and tragic at the same time.


Texas does indeed follow M'Naghten. The facts of the case would make it hard for me to believe that she didn't know that what she was doing was wrong. It's hard for me to weigh in too heavily though, because I'm having to pull this from what I remember from law school. Idaho has no insanity defense.

[K'Nort]

Some people do have poorly-controlled seizure disorder, and are not allowed to drive any more. That's the point, though. They're disallowed from driving, not locked away forever, even if their first seizure resulted in deaths.

I think it a fine idea to disallow Andrea Yates from ever being a parent again, or around children unsupervised, given her actions when ill. I don't see any value to treating her as generally dangerous, though.

But then the next hurdle is that how do you know someone is only capable of killing their own children? That's horrific enough that it's rather human nature to say "well if they'll kill their kids, they'll kill anyone." Nothing to do with medical fact, but we're not doctors. Not to mention that there are some aspects of human behaviour that not even the most brilliant educated minds can accurately predict.

And what is a truly workable way of keeping someone from ever being a parent again and never around children unsupervised, other than generally locking them up?


I also find it hard to believe that the father is being accurately portrayed.

[JeffreyWKramer]

But then the next hurdle is that how do you know someone is only capable of killing their own children? That's horrific enough that it's rather human nature to say "well if they'll kill their kids, they'll kill anyone." Nothing to do with medical fact, but we're not doctors. Not to mention that there are some aspects of human behaviour that not even the most brilliant educated minds can accurately predict.


One can make reasonable projections. Post-partum depression is highly treatable, and even without treatment it eventually goes into remission. As long as she doesn't become pregnant and give birth again, there's no reason to think she'd be a danger again.

And what is a truly workable way of keeping someone from ever being a parent again and never around children unsupervised, other than generally locking them up?

As to the first? Norplant? Sterilization? Or, if she does become pregnant, the state takes the kid? As to the second, it could be a condition of any release, not unlike parole conditions or requirements that individuals who have been dangerous in the past stay on their medications.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Texas does indeed follow M'Naghten. The facts of the case would make it hard for me to believe that she didn't know that what she was doing was wrong. It's hard for me to weigh in too heavily though, because I'm having to pull this from what I remember from law school. Idaho has no insanity defense.


I don't know all the facts of the case, but the "knew it was wrong" thing can be a tough aspect to determine, and is highly situational. Presumably this will be a major issue in the upcoming retrial.

[K'Nort]

I don't know all the facts of the case, but the "knew it was wrong" thing can be a tough aspect to determine, and is highly situational. Presumably this will be a major issue in the upcoming retrial.

I would think the burden of proof would be on "didn't know it was wrong."

[Slam_Bradley]

I would think the burden of proof would be on "didn't know it was wrong."


That's actually a very interesting issue. It is up to the State to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." However, insanity is usually an affirmative defense and as such the burden would generally be on the defendant to prove that they were insane. It makes me wonder what the law is in Texas. Again, I have no basis for comparison cause we just don't go there in Idaho.

[JeffreyWKramer]

That's actually a very interesting issue. It is up to the State to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." However, insanity is usually an affirmative defense and as such the burden would generally be on the defendant to prove that they were insane. It makes me wonder what the law is in Texas. Again, I have no basis for comparison cause we just don't go there in Idaho.


I did not know there were states without an insanity defense. Any others besides Idaho?

For the record, there are some circumstances in which I prefer the "guilty but insane" option which was instituted in some jurisdictions following the attempted assassination of Pres. Reagan, but I also think there is some real value to the traditional insanity defense.

[Slam_Bradley]

I did not know there were states without an insanity defense. Any others besides Idaho?

For the record, there are some circumstances in which I prefer the "guilty but insane" option which was instituted in some jurisdictions following the attempted assassination of Pres. Reagan, but I also think there is some real value to the traditional insanity defense.


I'm not sure if there are others or not. I'll see what I can find. The closest you can get in Idaho is if you lack the mens rea (intent) to commit the crime. If you are mentally ill and cannot understand the proceedings or assist in your defense then you'll get to go to the state hospital until such time as you can understand the proceedings or assist in your defense.

There are a number of states that have adopted "guilty but insane". There is a serious movement in Texas to adopt that possibility. I'd expect it to pass.

[Sabrinaset]

All I know is that if she had tried to kill *my* kid, I'd sterilize her myself.

With my hands.

[Slam_Bradley]

I did not know there were states without an insanity defense. Any others besides Idaho?



At the very least Montana and Utah. Montana's abolition of the insanity defense was upheld by the US Supreme Court in Cowan v. Montana, (1994).

[K'Nort]

At the very least Montana and Utah. Montana's abolition of the insanity defense was upheld by the US Supreme Court in Cowan v. Montana, (1994).

Kramer's getting a bill for this, isn't he?

[Slam_Bradley]

Kramer's getting a bill for this, isn't he?


Nahh...I do a surprising amount of free legal work for friends and family.

[Boldido]

That's actually a very interesting issue. It is up to the State to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." However, insanity is usually an affirmative defense and as such the burden would generally be on the defendant to prove that they were insane. It makes me wonder what the law is in Texas. Again, I have no basis for comparison cause we just don't go there in Idaho.

Can't speak for Texas, but for Florida, the law presumes defendants to be sane. To prevail on an insanity defense, the defendant must prove he was insane, as defined by the M'Naghten standard. (Thanks for the spelling, BTW, I always get that wrong.) The burden is on the defendant to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence. For non lawyers, this is a higher standard than preponderence of the evidence, 50%+, but lower than beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Boldido]

At the very least Montana and Utah. Montana's abolition of the insanity defense was upheld by the US Supreme Court in Cowan v. Montana, (1994).

If you start throwing in the actual book cite I will tease you mercilessly for being a law geek. You know that, don't you?

[Slam_Bradley]

Can't speak for Texas, but for Florida, the law presumes defendants to be sane. To prevail on an insanity defense, the defendand must prove they were insane, as defined by the M'Naghten standard. (Thanks for the spelling, BTW, I always get that wrong.) The burden is on the defendant to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence. For non lawyers, this is a higher standard than preponderence of the evidence, 50%+, but lower than beyond a reasonable doubt.


Ok. That's what I was figuring given it is an affirmative defense. It's interesting that it's "clear & convincing." That's a pretty heavy burden to put on a defendant. The burden for "self-defense" and "defense of others" here is a preponderance.

[Slam_Bradley]

If you start throwing in the actual book cite I will tease you mercilessly for being a law geek. You know that, don't you?

I didn't have it handy or I would have. I know that you're dying to read that case.

[Ray R.]

If you start throwing in the actual book cite I will tease you mercilessly for being a law geek. You know that, don't you?

260 Mont. 510; 861 P.2d 884

(I've been on Westlaw all day editing a brief).....

[Boldido]

Ok. That's what I was figuring given it is an affirmative defense. It's interesting that it's "clear & convincing." That's a pretty heavy burden to put on a defendant. The burden for "self-defense" and "defense of others" here is a preponderance.

I'm almost positive that it is preponderance for "self-defense" at which time the burden shifts back to the state to prove its not self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not sure why its so high for insanity.

[Boldido]

260 Mont. 510; 861 P.2d 884

(I've been on Westlaw all day editing a brief).....

Ray hard at work:http://img47.photobucket.com/albums/v143/sweetxpunk/foil_hat.jpg

GEEK!!!

[Ray R.]

Ok. That's what I was figuring given it is an affirmative defense. It's interesting that it's "clear & convincing." That's a pretty heavy burden to put on a defendant. The burden for "self-defense" and "defense of others" here is a preponderance.

Out of my domain, definitely in you, Doc and Boldido. Wouldn't the "clear and convincing" standard come from a consensus in medical opinion from separate psychiatrists? Or separate expert witness or deposition testimony on the probable state of mind of the defendant at the time of the murders?

[Ray R.]

Ray hard at work:http://img47.photobucket.com/albums/v143/sweetxpunk/foil_hat.jpg

GEEK!!!

I think the firm would be happy if I had a toilet in my office. More bilable hours.

[Slam_Bradley]

I think the firm would be happy if I had a toilet in my office. More bilable hours.


Don't you think on the can? If I'm thinking about a case, I'm billing.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Out of my domain, definitely in you, Doc and Boldido. Wouldn't the "clear and convincing" standard come from a consensus in medical opinion from separate psychiatrists? Or separate expert witness or deposition testimony on the probable state of mind of the defendant at the time of the murders?


Me, I have no idea why the legal system is why it is. Insanity is a legal concept, not a mental health one. I know what I do about it because it's one of the areas where the two fields commonly interact, but I don't have a guess as to why the laws would state the specific standard they do, or how one determines if that standard is met or not.

[K'Nort]

How can insanity not be a mental health concept? What does the mental health field use instead?

[Ray R.]

Don't you think on the can? If I'm thinking about a case, I'm billing.

Well, there's the legal urban legend -- about the lawyer who billed a client for the time spent on an airplane going to and from a meeting, who did work on the plane and billed another client for the same time on the plane, and because the work related to another case, billed yet another client for that same time.

Triple-billing for the same six hours.

And people wonder why lawyers get a bad rap.

As to me, the last thing I want to think about on the can is work. That's how constipation develops, and that leads to colostomy bags and death. I'll settle for the sports section or the latest copy of Entertainment Weekly (which will substitute for toilet paper in a pinch (pardon the pun)).....

[Slam_Bradley]

Well, there's the legal urban legend -- about the lawyer who billed a client for the time spent on an airplane going to and from a meeting, who did work on the plane and billed another client for the same time on the plane, and because the work related to another case, billed yet another client for that same time.

Triple-billing for the same six hours.

And people wonder why lawyers get a bad rap.

As to me, the last thing I want to think about on the can is work. That's how constipation develops, and that leads to colostomy bags and death. I'll settle for the sports section or the latest copy of Entertainment Weekly (which will substitute for toilet paper in a pinch (pardon the pun)).....


What makes you think that that's an urban legend. I've seen former partners of mine bill clients in almost that egregious a manner.

I did bill a client for time in the shower. I had an epiphany on a case early one morning while I was showering.

[JeffreyWKramer]

How can insanity not be a mental health concept? What does the mental health field use instead?

Insanity refers specifically to whether or not someone is guilty of a crime due to their state of mind, so it's a legal concept, not a mental health one. The standards used to define insanity don't really line up neatly with diagnosable conditions or syndromes, or with observable signs and symptoms. For example, psychosis itself doesn't necessarily qualify one for an insanity defense - somebody may be schizophrenic but also understand right/wrong.

[Ray R.]

What makes you think that that's an urban legend. I've seen former partners of mine bill clients in almost that egregious a manner.

I did bill a client for time in the shower. I had an epiphany on a case early one morning while I was showering.

We're not even allowed to bill a client for travel time. Ethically speaking, billing for the same sixty minutes or fifteen minutes to two different clients is close to or equal to overbilling, i.e., fraud, no matter how you spin it.....

A nice little client audit tends to nip such behavior in the bud.

Which is not to say I haven't billed while at home, or in my car, or on my boat.....just not to multiple clients. Blackberries tend to muddy the waters on what constitutes the "office" these days.....

[K'Nort]

Why can't you bill for travel time? You have to travel on your own dime?

[Slam_Bradley]

We're not even allowed to bill a client for travel time.


Really? That's weird. I used to represent a number of irrigation districts and canal companies that were fairly distant from my office. I was always able to bill for my travel time. Plus mileage.

[Ray R.]

Really? That's weird. I used to represent a number of irrigation districts and canal companies that were fairly distant from my office. I was always able to bill for my travel time. Plus mileage.


No, it gets billed to the firm. Keep in mind, we're one of the larger corporate firms in the world, though. There are travel client/matter numbers that account for the hours spent traveling. The client does pay for the flight and associated costs like lunch and cabs, though. We do get reimbursed for mileage, but the time spent in the car, we get reimbursed, just out of the firm account, not the client's pocket.

We bill the client from the minute we walk into the client's office (or court or job site), until we walk out and step into a cab or car. Then the time gets billed to the firm until we step foot out of the car.

We also don't bill for Lexis or Westlaw research time costs, on top of the firm billable time. The firm eats that too.

This is not the case at all firms, though. Can't say this authoritatively, but I think our high billing rates more than make up the difference. If I took home a third of what I billed an hour, I'd be sitting pretty.

[Boldido]

Out of my domain, definitely in you, Doc and Boldido. Wouldn't the "clear and convincing" standard come from a consensus in medical opinion from separate psychiatrists? Or separate expert witness or deposition testimony on the probable state of mind of the defendant at the time of the murders?

Surely the testimony of various experts would come into play, such as the consensus you mention, but it can be offset by the actions of the defendant which may indicate to a jury her ability to appreciate the nature of her actions, like calling 911 immediately after the last one was dead.

[K'Nort]

Surely the testimony of various experts would come into play, such as the consensus you mention, but it can be offset by the actions of the defendant which may indicate to a jury her ability to appreciate the nature of her actions, like calling 911 immediately after the last one was dead.

But it's not an offset. Wouldn't the experts specifically talk about those actions and what they signify, including calling 911?

[Slam_Bradley]

But it's not an offset. Wouldn't the experts specifically talk about those actions and what they signify, including calling 911?


You'd think that they would. But they wouldn't necessarily. It only comes up if it is asked on direct or on cross-examination.

And the jury is totally free to disregard the expert's testimony. And frequently do, particularly in criminal cases.

[Boldido]

But it's not an offset. Wouldn't the experts specifically talk about those actions and what they signify, including calling 911?
They very well may, but the jury instructions, at least in Florida, are clear: A juror may choose to believe or disbelieve some or all of any witnesses testimony. So if a Dr. says its consistent with insanity but a prosecutor argues its consistent with sanity, a juror can believe whoever he wants.

[Ray R.]

You'd think that they would. But they wouldn't necessarily. It only comes up if it is asked on direct or on cross-examination.

And the jury is totally free to disregard the expert's testimony. And frequently do, particularly in criminal cases.

And then there are the motions in limine. You guys deal with those, right?

I just worked on a case where our side had 43 witnesses excluded, over 10,000 pages of testimony. Naturally, we're in the appeals stage now...

[JeffreyWKramer]

And the jury is totally free to disregard the expert's testimony. And frequently do, particularly in criminal cases.

And particularly when you have dueling "expert witnesses", which is all too often the case these days, particularly when you have hired-gun experts who are all too willing to chuck ethics aside and say whatever the side hiring them wants them to say. That's against the professional ethics of most fields, but it happens all too often.

I think the whole expert witness thing could be improved greatly for criminal cases if either a) witnesses were chosen by the court, with both prosecution and defense having some degree of veto power, or by consensus of both prosecution and defense, with the goal either way being to obtain as neutral an expert opinion as possible. As is, it becomes a circus often as not.

[Slam_Bradley]

And then there are the motions in limine. You guys deal with those, right?

I just worked on a case where our side had 43 witnesses excluded, over 10,000 pages of testimony. Naturally, we're in the appeals stage now...


We do. But not anywhere on that level. We're just ole' small town country lawyers.

[Ray R.]

We do. But not anywhere on that level. We're just ole' small town country lawyers.


Believe you me, it seems pretty damn enticing at times to chuck all of this most days and move to a place like Idaho....


Grass is always greener, right?

[Slam_Bradley]

Believe you me, it seems pretty damn enticing at times to chuck all of this most days and move to a place like Idaho....


Grass is always greener, right?


The cool thing is that I can wear cowboy boots in to trial...and say phrases like "that dog won't hunt" and they just eat it up.

[K'Nort]

Believe you me, it seems pretty damn enticing at times to chuck all of this most days and move to a place like Idaho....


Grass is always greener, right?

Well it's actually bluer where Slam is....

[Boldido]

Well it's actually bluer where Slam is....

That's funny...I thought Idaho was a red state.

[K'Nort]

That's funny...I thought Idaho was a red state.

The grass. The grass.

[Slam_Bradley]

That's funny...I thought Idaho was a red state.


With the lack of water the last few years it's been pretty brown. Even the sage brush has lost it's sagey color.

[Iangould]

Well, there's the legal urban legend -- about the lawyer who billed a client for the time spent on an airplane going to and from a meeting, who did work on the plane and billed another client for the same time on the plane, and because the work related to another case, billed yet another client for that same time.

Triple-billing for the same six hours.

And people wonder why lawyers get a bad rap.

As to me, the last thing I want to think about on the can is work. That's how constipation develops, and that leads to colostomy bags and death. I'll settle for the sports section or the latest copy of Entertainment Weekly (which will substitute for toilet paper in a pinch (pardon the pun)).....

Some law firms bill in minimum increments of one hour.

Supposedly one law firm used to get all the partners in a room together once a week and each would list (without going into any detail) the cases they were currently working on.

Each client mentioned got a one hour consult fee for every partner present.

[heretic]

This I have a big problem with. What you're arguing is the equivalent of saying that someone who is driving, has a seizure and causes an accident, killing someone, should be locked away forever. That's both unjust and, frankly, stupid. Should such a person drive? No, unless the seizure disorder can be treated and effectively put in full remission. But locked away? No. And fact is, Ms. Yates had no more control over her behavior when she killed her child than would a person in the midst of seizure.

As opposed to some other conditions, where treatment is a very iffy thing, post-partum depression is a very treatable disorder, and when treated effectively, the person is no threat to anyone.
So you are saying that she should forget about custody of any surviving kids (I do not recall if any escaped) and get her tubes tied. Sounds reasonable under the circumstances.

HTG

[PatrickG]

And particularly when you have dueling "expert witnesses", which is all too often the case these days, particularly when you have hired-gun experts who are all too willing to chuck ethics aside and say whatever the side hiring them wants them to say. That's against the professional ethics of most fields, but it happens all too often.


I don't think it's even a matter of chucking ethics aside.

In almost any field, I'm willing to bet that you can find professionals who have any and every imaginable range of opinions on any subject.

I'm sure you can find a shrink (who is able to tenuously hold onto his/her lisence somehow) who also believes in euthanizing anyone who qualifies for any diagnosis in the DSM.

You can find a ballistics expert who thinks that gunpowder and ballistics are a government conspiracy to cover for the fairies who live inside guns and magically make them shoot people.

I doubt there's a viewpoint that's unrepresented. As long as a person is somewhat sensible about playing by the rules of their profession, they can maintain a position in their field even if they think the Muppets killed JFK.

However... Here's something that puzzles me:

You seem very confident about Yates' diagnosis. Don't people sometimes fake or get prepped by their lawyers for a certain diagnosis/plea?

I suppose you could be 80-percent sure by reading the case but can you, as an expert, really be sure without having met the woman, just from transcripts and such?

And if so, dear lord, you could probably make a living sending out prescriptions to people on these boards. ;)

[JeffreyWKramer]

So you are saying that she should forget about custody of any surviving kids (I do not recall if any escaped) and get her tubes tied. Sounds reasonable under the circumstances.

I certainly think so.

[JeffreyWKramer]

However... Here's something that puzzles me:

You seem very confident about Yates' diagnosis. Don't people sometimes fake or get prepped by their lawyers for a certain diagnosis/plea?

I suppose you could be 80-percent sure by reading the case but can you, as an expert, really be sure without having met the woman, just from transcripts and such?

And if so, dear lord, you could probably make a living sending out prescriptions to people on these boards. ;)

I don't know the case real well, but I have talked to one of the mental health professionals who examined Yates at length for the defense. This individual is someone I know very well, one of the most competent and ethical people I'm aware of in the field of forensic mental health, and is about as widely-regarded as anyone in the entire field of mental health, so I trust this person's judgment 100%.

Also, it is fairly hard for a person to successfully fake serious mental illness with a competent clinician. That isn't even an issue in this case, though, as Yates' diagnosis of postpartum depression was a matter of record before she caused the deaths of her children. The only question here is whether or not her mental state reduces her legal culpability for her actions.

[PatrickG]

Well, it helps that you know the caliber of the physicians on this case, at least.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Well, it helps that you know the caliber of the physicians on this case, at least.

I know that one. I knew the rep of the prosecution's big expert - Park Deitz, MD - as well. That rep has long been "big name hired gun". Now, after the revelation of his unethical conduct, the rep is "mud." A shame in some ways - Deitz is a very educated man who is a bonafide expert in the field, but his record has called into question whether he isn't willing to put the goals of the prosecution ahead of the honesty of his expertise.

[Ray R.]

I know that one. I knew the rep of the prosecution's big expert - Park Deitz, MD - as well. That rep has long been "big name hired gun". Now, after the revelation of his unethical conduct, the rep is "mud." A shame in some ways - Deitz is a very educated man who is a bonafide expert in the field, but his record has called into question whether he isn't willing to put the goals of the prosecution ahead of the honesty of his expertise.

Yup, you're exactly right Jeffrey. I don't care what his CV (curriculum vitae) looks like, as an expert witness, his days of billing $350 an hour plus expenses are over. He's impeachable on cross every single case he steps into. Expert witness fees are a gravy train you NEVER mess with. Especially over something so stupid as not remembering you "consulted" on a show dealing with the same theme as the case.

And the prosecution bungled it. They never should have let the guy near the case.