The Defense for Andrea Yates is all upset because the State's expert has suggested that defense psychiatric experts might be fudging the facts to garner sympathy for the defendant. Here is the news story:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/metropolitan/1389783

I'm a little confused by this statement from the defense expert:

"To make a statement that the prosecution is seeking truth and justice is somewhat scandalous," she said. Isn't that our job?

The part of the article that I found more interesting was that defense attorney's statement that "Dietz's inaccurate testimony about Law & Order could be the basis of an appeal of Yates' conviction." I think I'd like to read that portion of their brief. Maybe we should add a Law & Order synopsis as a regular feature of the Prosecutor. I'm just want to help all of the appellate guys get it right when they handle these points on appeal.