Newsroom
April 2002
- Did She or Didn't She? The Pivotal Question in the Andrea Yates Trial
Did She or Didn't She?
The Pivotal Question in the Andrea Yates Trial
By Mark I. Levy, M.D.
Andrea Pia Yates is currently on
trial for the drowning murder of her young children. No one familiar with this
case questions whether or not Yates committed the murders. The central legal
question that will seal Yates' fate is: Did she know the wrongfulness of her
actions at the time she systematically drowned each of her five children? The
jury's decision regarding her guilt in this case will pivot on the psychiatric
testimony presented by both sides. Both the prosecution and the defense have
retained renowned forensic psychiatrists to address this question and delineate
for the jury the definition of “not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI). The
prosecution has hired Dr. Park Dietz. Dr. Philip Resnick will consult for the
defense. Dietz's testimony was successful in Jeffrey Dahmer's serial killing
trial, while Resnick has studied mothers who kill their children, including
Susan Smith in South Carolina. In the state of Texas, a jury can award the defendant
an NGRI verdict only if the jury determines she did not comprehend the wrongfulness
of the act at the time she committed it. How can anyone believe that murdering
her children is NOT wrong, you ask. First, it is important to note that these
murders did not come out of the blue. A review of Yates’ psychiatric history
offers a picture of a woman who had suffered at times from severe depression
since her early 20s. After the birth of her fourth child in 1999, Yates suffered
post-partum depression, accompanied by psychosis and suicidal behavior. Her
psychiatrist at the time warned that any additional babies would result in more
depression and more psychosis. In fact, before she drowned her children, Yates
had twice attempted suicide, only to be rescued each time by her husband. I
believe that Dr. Resnick will draw a connection between Yates’ previous suicide
attempts and the murders of her children. It is probable that he will describe
how her psychotic episodes gradually led Yates to experience what psychiatrists
call “a loss of ego boundaries” (that is, Yates was unable to distinguish between
where she ended and her children began) as she slid down the slope into delusional
psychosis. Thus, by murdering her children, Yates may have believed that she
was actually committing suicide. On the other hand, Dr. Dietz will argue that
when Yates called 9-1-1 and asked repeatedly for a police officer to be sent
to her home, she did indeed comprehend her wrongdoing. Dietz may suggest that
if Yates was suicidal at the time of the murders, she was in fact attempting
to commit “suicide by state” knowing that if she killed her children, the
justice system would then send her to death row and the punishment she believed
she deserved. While no one can predict the decision of a jury in such an emotionally
charged capital criminal trial, I do believe that the testimonies of two eminent
forensic psychiatrists will equip the jury with the information they will require
in order to deliberate the case. Thus, they will be able to fulfill their arduous
responsibility of determining Andrea Yates’ guilt or her innocence by reason
of insanity.
Mark I. Levy, M.D., is a forensic
psychiatrist, an assistant clinical professor at the University of California,
San Francisco, and a private practice psychiatrist and psychoanalyst.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact:
Mary Tressel, 925-686-2958
