Case Analysis : Andrea Yates Trial

Bill Cosby has been charged with an aggravated indecent assault, and an arrest warrant has been issued for his arrest according to People, Dec. 29. 2015. Andrea Constand accused Bill of drugging her and sexually assaulting her while, she worked at Temple University as the operations manager of the women’s basketball team.

Since they were in the process of divorce was her husband had another agenda behind the petition he filed to the court? If he hadn’t why was he absent at the time she was taken to the hospital? Did her husband bribe psychiatrist? Did the conversation the plaintiff had with defendant enough to level her as mentally ill? Was she really ill? If she was , could she refuse to have the treatment? Was she competent at the time of her refusal for the treatment? Was she capable to give her consent? What was the result of the treatment?

Diana Dial's ability to communicate with her legal counsel and understand the charges against her. Comparing Diana Dial's case to other cases provided in the textbook gives a better understanding of legal and psychological aspects. The similarities and contrasts in legal standards, case outcomes, and defendant characteristics provide insights into how various elements influence the judicial process and verdicts. Jurors play an important role in deciding the outcome of a trial, particularly in cases involving people with psychological difficulties. Examining juror perceptions of mental illness, the insanity defense, and the defendant's behavior gives useful information about the decision-making

The Casey Anthony trial was a controversial and a media-encompassed case that followed the disappearance of Caylee Anthony – a two year old girl who lived in Orlando, Florida. The case began on terms that were less than adequate, when Casey’s mother, Cindy Anthony, called authorities on the basis that she had not seen her granddaughter for over 30 days. It should also be acknowledged that the mother had even stated, in her own words, that Casey’s car “smelled like there’d been a dead body,” in it. Investigation led to portion after portion of evidence, along with even more questions on what had befallen Caylee after it turned out that her mother had falsified a slew of information. The original story that Casey offered stated that she had left

Andrea Yates was a thirty-seven year old mother who committed a terrible crime. As she drowned her five children in the family bathtub, she believed that she was “saving” them. Many horrendous crimes are committed, yet the assailant gets away with the verdict of insanity.

A significant and controversial issue within the legal system is the ‘insanity defense’ in which during a criminal trial, the defendant will make a claim that they are not guilty by reason of insanity, or in other words, they have deficient and impaired cognitive and mental capabilities. These mental health problems associated with insanity are caused by psychopathological disorders, which may have led to their dysfunction. What separates this from a regular plead of ‘diminished capacity’ is that a plea of insanity is a full defense rather than just a partial defense (Legal information institute, n.d.). With the diminished capacity defense, the defendant’s mental competence is still the focus, although they are pleading to a lesser crime

The punishment in the State of Texas for committing two capital crimes is life in jail or the death penalty. Andrea’s lawyer tried to show her innocence by protesting that she was insane at the time of the killings. This plea of insanity could have kept her from life in jail or the death penalty. Sure, she would have served a couple years in jail, but she would have been given the opportunity to come out on parole. Now, if this lady was insane like some

During Yates’ second trial, the jury was not death qualified and once again the insanity defense was used. In Texas, the insanity defense standard, essentially has to answer the question of whether or not the individual knew what they were doing was wrong, or if their mind was guilty (mens rea). The defense psychiatrist, Phillip Resnick, stated that Yates was indeed psychotic. Resnick also explained that Yates believed that by killing her children she would defeat Satan (Resnick, 2007). Yates believed that drowning her children would be better than having them grow up and eventually burn in hell for their wrongdoings (Resnick, 2007). Yates motives were conflicting because she knew what she did was wrong, but simultaneously she thought it was

The court held the psychologist responsible for the murder of his girlfriend and for not informing of the intent to harm. I believe Justice Tobriner said it best, “the protective privilege ends where the public peril begins.”

Throughout one’s life many are prone to being in one of America’s many courtrooms at least once in their life. Whether it is for a parking ticket, a petty larceny charge, or simply jury duty most citizens have been in a courtroom once or twice. However, it is rare that one knows the many steps and processes that take place when a crime has been convicted. There is an excess number of elements that are introduced and just to name a few it all starts with the occurrence of the crime, then follows the arrest, proceeded by an arraignment, bail hearing and any more steps before finally reaching the final verdict that lands one with guilt or innocence (Neubrauer, Fadella 2013). Based on the laws in place by the United States and the Constitution one must be able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is doubt at all in the jurors minds, they cannot convict the individual of being guilty and lately this has created a lot of controversy in the United States with many cases being tried. For example, the Casey Anthony case that took place in Florida was one of the most recent states where Common Law and the Constitution were unable to be reconcilable to prove one’s guilt.

The New York State Senate today passed legislation (S.1822), sponsored by Senator Frank Padavan (R-C, Bellerose), that would allow juries to find defendants "guilty but mentally ill" in cases where they believe the defendant may have been mentally ill at the time of the crime, but should still be held responsible for his or her actions.

An unfortunate reality in today’s society is the gross overrepresentation of persons with mental illness in the criminal justice system. According to Teplin (1984), persons with mental illness have been found to be almost twice as likely as individuals without any known mental illness to be arrested for their behavior in similar situations. Furthermore, several other studies have even shown that roughly half of all persons with a mental illness have been arrested at least once in their lifetime (Solomon & Draine, 1995; Walsh & Bricourt, 2003). Although these statistics seem to further support the common belief among many citizens that mentally ill persons are dangerous criminals, research indicates that the mentally ill are more often arrested for nonviolent minor charges (Cuellar, Snowden, & Ewing, 2007). Not surprisingly, a considerable portion of individuals within the criminal justice population have a diagnosable mental illness. According to Ditton (1999), 7% of federal inmates, 16% of state inmates, and 16% of jail inmates have a mental illness. These percentages may be inflated because persons with mental illness tend to spend longer periods of time in custody than those without a mental illness. Perhaps the greatest indication of the brokenness of the system is the fact that there are more mentally ill persons in jails and prisons today than in public psychiatric hospitals (Lamb& Bachrach, 2001). In fact, according to the

There are a lot of courses of action that have to be taken when it comes to the plea. Regardless of all the processes that have to be done, it is better for a mentally ill defendant to seek this alibi. It is imperative for the accused to try to give a justification for their actions in order to avoid getting possible jail time. With the diagnosis of a mental health professional, they are able to provide verification of their mental illness. The insanity defense is the only defense that they are supplied with to defend their position in a case. According to the article, Insanity Defense: Proposals

Image a life where you have difficulty defending yourself and nobody can clearly understand you. Now visualize trying to convince others that you are innocent of a crime. Since the early 80s, more than sixty mentally ill criminals have been executed the US (Mental Illness on Death Row). This paper will discuss the relationship between the law and the challenges faced by mentally criminals from tries to appeals and execution. It provides examples of some of the more famous cases of the execution of the mentally ill and describes current legislative. But we would try answer the whether the mentally disabled criminals should be charged with a death penalty. Throughout this paper, we will use Borromeo 's definition of someone with mental issues. He stated "mental retardation is a lifelong condition of impaired or incomplete mental development..." ( Borromeo 178). Some examples of these illnesses include but are not limited to major depression, bipolar disorder, post traumatic stress disorder and borderline personality disorder .

After close review and careful analysis of the case of Andrea Yates and the circumstances which led to the drowning death and murder of her five children, I first would like to state my personal opinion on the conclusion of the case which was the majority consensus at the time of her trial and sentencing. She was guilty of a horrible murder and although certainly had mental problems, which is apparent by her actions that most completely rational thinking human being and mother would be incapable of committing, and expertly