We need to draw a bath for the TX Appeals Court

[UConn James]

Mom's convictions overturned for drowning three of her kids.

 

Umm, I doubt that the jury made their decision based on a psychologist doing whatever on a fuggin' television show. Because TV shows matter in the actual justice system.

 

I could give a sh--. Arrest him for perjury. But the jury went on the fact that THE LADY DROWNED HER KIDS, ONE BY ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Maybe in the retrial, they'll be able to give her the death penalty and right that wrong.

 

These are the types that Bush is going to nominate for the high court?

[Alaska Darin]

But how come no one's calling for stricter control of bathtubs? Shouldn't Home Depot be forced to do background checks on potential customers?

 

Who's looking out for the children?

[nobody]

But how come no one's calling for stricter control of bathtubs?  Shouldn't Home Depot be forced to do background checks on potential customers?

 

Who's looking out for the children?

196261[/snapback]

 

 

It's the plumbers you have to blame - they need to determine if a person is fit to have that tub installed with plumbing. Not like people are dropping the tubs onto the kids.

[DC Tom]

It's the plumbers you have to blame - they need to determine if a person is fit to have that tub installed with plumbing.  Not like people are dropping the tubs onto the kids.

196282[/snapback]

 

Actually, it's the cars. If you look at the statistics, there's a very high correlation between people who own cars and people who drown their kids in the bathtub. If we ban cars, that correlation goes to 0, and the problem is solved.

[GG]

It's the telephone poles. If we have more poles, there would be less cars available to drive on roads.

[VABills]

But how come no one's calling for stricter control of bathtubs?  Shouldn't Home Depot be forced to do background checks on potential customers?

 

Who's looking out for the children?

196261[/snapback]

If this woman didn't have that gun she never would have been able to kill those children. We need to ban guns.

 

 

 

What's that. No guns, then how did she kill them, because everyone knows that NRA and guns are the only things that kills people.

[/dev/null]

If this woman didn't have that gun she never would have been able to kill those children.  We need to ban guns.

What's that.  No guns, then how did she kill them, because everyone knows that NRA and guns are the only things that kills people. 

196334[/snapback]

 

she killed them by drowning them in water. if the water wasn't so polluted maybe the children would have survived

 

we need tougher environmental laws

[Terry Tate]

Mom's convictions overturned for drowning three of her kids.

 

Umm, I doubt that the jury made their decision based on a psychologist doing whatever on a fuggin' television show. Because TV shows matter in the actual justice system.

 

I could give a sh--. Arrest him for perjury. But the jury went on the fact that THE LADY DROWNED HER KIDS, ONE BY ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Maybe in the retrial, they'll be able to give her the death penalty and right that wrong.

 

These are the types that Bush is going to nominate for the high court?

196124[/snapback]

The psychologist called by the prosecution testified under oath that the woman killed her children by drowning shortly after watching a TV show about a mother who drowns her children, then receives a "not guilty by reason of insanity" ruling at trial. Since the doctor was testifying she was not insane and was as able to differentiate between right and wrong as well as any of us, this lie would suggest a thought process and state of mind that was not necessarily the case, since there was no such show. The appeals court ruled there was a reasonable likelihood that his false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.

 

The defense attorney has no intention of trying to seek her release from prison, btw. He realizes that's the safest place for her right now. What he's trying to do is get a insanity ruling and get her sent to a mental hospital.

 

The Bush comment at the end will serve you well if you wish to categorize yourself.

[UConn James]

Don't know what all of those following posts are all about. I've got an NRA Life Member sticker on the back of my[//i] Jeep.... That wasn't even near what I was trying to say.

 

The psychologist called by the prosecution testified under oath that the woman killed her children by drowning shortly after watching a TV show about a mother who drowns her children, then receives a "not guilty by reason of insanity" ruling at trial. Since the doctor was testifying she was not insane and was as able to differentiate between right and wrong as well as any of us, this lie would suggest a thought process and state of mind that was not necessarily the case, since there was no such show. The appeals court ruled there was a reasonable likelihood that his false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.

 

The Bush comment at the end will serve you well if you wish to categorize yourself.

196444[/snapback]

 

This was talked about for about 10 minutes in a weeks-long trial. Fruit of the poison tree blah blah blah.

 

So, Lionel Tate should be categorized as insane b/c he killed his 3-year-old sister after watching wrestling, where everyone gets right up after being body-slammed?

 

The day we judge mental competancy based on whether someone saw a television show is when the justice system has become completely useless. Don't get me started on the uselessness of psychological therapists. She murdered her children. She should be in jail for the rest of her life, at least.

 

Okay, I officially retract that comment. They are elected, not appointed.

[VABills]

Don't know what all of those following posts are all about. I've got an NRA Life Member sticker on the back of my[//i] Jeep

196500[/snapback]

 

Too lazy to peel it off after your bought it from the previous owner huh?

[blzrul]

In Texas BY LAW the jury is not allowed to know that a person adjudicated insane will go to a mental hospital until he/she is deemed "sane". The prosecution uses this law to give the jury the impression that if they find someone insane, that person goes home that day, to kill some more.

 

THAT's in part why this guy's lie was so impactful. There's no other way to explain her bizarre behavior - either she saw it on TV or she's really a nutcase.

 

By the way, the preacher who was so condemned for contributing to the wackiness ... the one who had them living in an abandoned bus...anybody know who he is? Surprise, surprise, he's the same guy that presided over Bush's "moment of enlightenment" (when he was born again).

[CookieG]

The psychologist called by the prosecution testified under oath that the woman killed her children by drowning shortly after watching a TV show about a mother who drowns her children, then receives a "not guilty by reason of insanity" ruling at trial. Since the doctor was testifying she was not insane and was as able to differentiate between right and wrong as well as any of us, this lie would suggest a thought process and state of mind that was not necessarily the case, since there was no such show. The appeals court ruled there was a reasonable likelihood that his false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.

 

The defense attorney has no intention of trying to seek her release from prison, btw. He realizes that's the safest place for her right now. What he's trying to do is get a insanity ruling and get her sent to a mental hospital.

 

The Bush comment at the end will serve you well if you wish to categorize yourself.

196444[/snapback]

 

 

Nice post. 2 things that really stick out from the decision, in my mind:

 

 

http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opini...OpinionId=81309

 

 

first,

 

" 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.

In our case, Dr. Dietz did not make an affidavit that he testified falsely. However,because the State stipulated that Dr. Dietz would testify that his testimony was in error, thereis no credibility issue requiring an affidavit. See Dougherty v. State, 745 S.W.2d 107, 107(Tex. App.—Amarillo 1988), aff’d, 773 S.W.2d 320 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (stating thatState was bound by its stipulation).

 

 

Close Williams v. State, 375 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964). The exceptions to this rule—such as, when the recanting witness is an accomplice, or the recantation is found to be incredible in light of the evidence, or the recantation has been coerced—do not apply in the present case. See Villarreal v. State, 788 S.W.2d 672, 674 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d) (applying general rule to determine that, because State offered no evidence to controvert recantation or testimony, denial of motion for new trial was abuse of discretion). We note that 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. See Ramirez v. State, 96 S.W.3d 386, 394-95 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. ref’d).

 

 

second

 

 

"Five mental health experts testified that appellant 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 appellant 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” episodewas false, the jury would likely have considered him, the State’s only mental health expert,to be less credible. "

[UConn James]

Too lazy to peel it off after your bought it from the previous owner huh?

196506[/snapback]

 

Umm, no. Haven't been able to do much target practice the past few years, but I'm getting back into it. I can still shoot the backstop, yessir.

 

A person can support what the NRA advocates and still lean Dem. Howard Dean has a better rating than most Repubs, even.

 

What gun issues possibly have to do with Andrea Yates, I'm still scratching my head over....

[Wacka]

And Debbie delivers once again! :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

[UConn James]

  "Five mental health experts testified that appellant 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 appellant 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” episodewas false, the jury would likely have considered him, the State’s only mental health expert,to be less credible. "

196523[/snapback]

 

And if they find five "mental health experts" who say she knew full well what she was doing, that would make them right?

 

All of these experts with their interpretations of a person's mindset when half of the stuff they learned in college has already been debunked.

 

The insanity defense is stupid beyond the pale. Second only to the Twinkie defense.

[CookieG]

And if they find five "mental health experts" who say she knew full well what she was doing, that would make them right?

 

All of these experts with their interpretations of a person's mindset when half of the stuff they learned in college has already been debunked.

 

The insanity defense is stupid beyond the pale. Second only to the Twinkie defense.

196531[/snapback]

 

 

The testimony of the doctor providing the false testimony was the only expert testimony that she understood that what she did was wrong.

[UConn James]

The testimony of the doctor providing the false testimony was the only expert testimony that she understood that what she did was wrong.

196532[/snapback]

 

Henry Lee was the only expert who testified that the blood evidence at Bundy Drive led him to believe "something wrong!" Doesn't mean OJ didn't do it.

 

The Supreme Court ruled that it was okay to put the Japanese in concentration camps during WWII, even tho their personal notes later showed they knew it was unconstitutional as they were doing it. Does that mean if 9 justices said it was okay and none said it wasn't, then 9-0 wins and it's true, true, true?

 

Prosecution likely went w/ one expert b/c they figured it'd be all they needed. They'll find others, I'm sure.

[CookieG]

Henry Lee was the only expert who testified that the blood evidence at Bundy Drive led him to believe "something wrong!" Doesn't mean OJ didn't do it.

 

The Supreme Court ruled that it was okay to put the Japanese in concentration camps during WWII, even tho their personal notes later showed they knew it was unconstitutional as they were doing it. Does that mean if 9 justices said it was okay and none said it wasn't, then 9-0 wins and it's true, true, true?

 

Prosecution likely went w/ one expert b/c they figured it'd be all they needed. They'll find others, I'm sure.

196536[/snapback]

 

 

One one psychiatrist that is forced to use false evidence as the basis for his conclusions is ....right?

[Gavin in Va Beach]

The real absurdity is that "not guilty by reason of insanity" is even an option. Justice should be blind and not give a crap about the state of mind someone is in when they undertake an unlawful act.

 

Some lawmaker a time ago said we should change the option to "guilty but insane" so that the lawbreaker gets punished but can still get mental help while incarcerated. Works for me.

[aussiew]

or she's really a nutcase.

 

How can any mother who calls her children into the bathroom one by one and drowns them NOT be a nutcase??? I've raised 5 kids and know that sometimes you can get so angry you can lose control, but this is way beyond that. I think she belongs in a mental hospital rather than a jail. But I'd keep her there forever.