NEW ARTICLES:

Insane? The Andrea Pia Yates Case

Andrea Yates
by Dr. Christina J. Johns
Law, Power and Justice Syndicate

August 29, 2001

Andrea Yates, the Texas woman accused of killing her five children by drowning them in a bathtub, has entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity to capital murder charges.

Yates was present in the courtroom when the plea was made, but her lawyer made the plea for her. Court TV observers said Yates presented an emotionally flat affect, and did not appear to make eye contact with either her husband or her mother-in-law who were watching from the front row.

Some two hours later, prosecutors announced that they would seek the death penalty in the case.

A court-ordered psychological evaluation of Yates (not released to the public) was thought to have entered into the prosecutor’s decision to ask for the death penalty. But, CBS reported that the report concluded that Yates was mentally ill now and when she committed the crime. Yates’ husband and her lawyer, however, maintain that Yates is in a psychotic state and cannot even communicate.

Because of this dispute, the court has granted a defense motion for a competency hearing to be held before a jury. The competency hearing will determine whether or not Yates is legally competent to go to trial. The previous mental evaluation by the state (given that it is favorable to the state’s case, as reported) will no doubt be introduced as evidence in the hearing, but the defense will also present its own experts to testify that Yates is not competent to stand trial.

Defendants are considered competent to stand trial if at the time of the crime, they understood the nature and character of their actions. A second requirement is that the defendant be able to assist the attorney in the preparation of the case. This is what the jury will be asked to decide in the competency hearing for Yates.

If she is found not competent to stand trial, she will be sent to a mental hospital. The competency issue will be taken up again after Yates has received treatment. If Yates is found to be competent, she will be tried like any other defendant.

If Yates does stand trial, her lawyers intend to use an insanity defense. They will argue that even though she committed the crime, she cannot be held responsible in the same way as someone who was sane and aware of what they were doing at the time.

In the past, in many states, a successful insanity defense meant that the defendant was acquitted. In recent years, however, several states have added options. In a number of states the defendant can be found either not guilty by reason of insanity, guilty, or guilty but insane. This last verdict allows the state to send the defendant to a mental institution until they are declared sane and then have them transferred to a penal institution.

Part of the reason for the addition of a "guilty but sane" determination is the public perception that too many people are avoiding responsibility for their crimes. But, public perception about the insanity defense is largely wrong. Insanity defenses are rarely brought and rarely successful.

Michael Perlin, professor at New York Law School, who wrote a book on the subject, says that insanity defenses are used in less than 1% of trials. Each state has a different definition of insanity, but according to The Gayle Encyclopedia of Psychology, of those who plead insanity only .25% out of the 1% are successful. (More on the difficulty of arguing insanity in Yates’ individual case).